Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (HULL DOCKS) BILL

CORNWALL RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

DEE AND CLWYD RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

HULL TIDAL SURGE BARRIER BILL

HUMBER BRIDGE BILL

Read a Second One and committed.

LANGSTONE MARINA BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

NORTH WALES HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER BILL

RYDE CORPORATION BILL

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

TYNESIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Youth Employment

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he hopes to reach his decision on financial aid to schemes specifically designed to help youth employment.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide additional help to prepare long-term unemployed young people for permanent employment; if he will make provision for extending the Community Industry Scheme; and what consideration he has given to limiting employment in the scheme to a period of two years or until a person attains the age of 19 years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): My right hon. Friend expects to make a statement within the next few days and I cannot anticipate what he might say.

Mr. Dalyell: Why cannot it be made now? This has been going for three months. In particular, what is being done for the long-term unemployed who are associated with the scheme?

Mr. Smith: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern and interest, but, as he probably appreciates, this was a pilot scheme and certain difficulties have arisen about long-term administration. We want to get it right. As I say, my right hon. Friend will be making a statement within the next few days. It was hoped to be able to do so today but that has not proved possible. We shall be making a statement very shortly.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is my hon. Friend considering giving help to firms which have spare training capacity and could give engineering craft training for a full four years to unemployed schoolleavers?

Mr. Smith: We do help with training in assisted areas, and this matter is kept constantly under review. Again, I know my hon. Friend's interest in this subject and he may like to know that the National Youth Employment Council is doing an "in depth" study into the whole question of long-term employment for the less able young person. We are helping to service this inquiry and are giving it every facility.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that youth unemployment persists at a devastatingly high level and that the figures which were published this month show a worse trend? As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, Questions have been on the Order Paper every month——

Mr. Dalyell: Scandalous!

Mr. Walker: —since July. After all these months of persistent questioning from both sides of the House we are promised a statement in a few days, but not now. The scheme has proved its worth beyond doubt, and there is widespread expectation that the Government will respond. Will not the hon. Gentleman give an assurance, in advance of the statement, that the Government will respond sympathetically, and bring hope to those who depend upon the scheme, which has been running so successfully?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman has held office and knows that it is impossible to anticipate an important statement. I appreciate the interest that has been shown in this pilot scheme, which has been extended from the end of last year until March. I can give an assurance that there will not be any redundancies for those who are currently affected by it.

Sir S. McAdden: Is the situation as depressing as has been indicated by the questions, or is there now a better trend in youth employment?

Mr. Smith: We mave to keep these things in proportion. In January 1973 the number of registered unemployed

young people was 46,952. In January 1972 the number was 55,842. Those figures also answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker). The number of vacancies has also improved and there are definite signs that 'the employment situation for young people is improving. We are not complacent about it. The Community Industry Scheme is very small, but is none the less an interesting experiment.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now make a statement on the future structure of the youth employment service.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): I expect to make an announcement very shortly.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread concern among youth employment and careers officers at the delays? In making this statement, will he make "very shortly" mean "very shortly"?

Mr. Macmillan: I am fully aware of the difficulties of the situation. The future structure of the service will be defined in the Employment and Training Bill, which, as the hon. Gentleman has heard, we shall place before the House at a very early date. I cannot give an undertaking on this point, but it may be accompanied by a White Paper or explanatory document which will set out the position clearly.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the many valuable services provided by local authority careers officers? Will he not accept that their confidence is hardly to be won when he publishes papers before consulting them?

Mr. Macmillan: We published a consultative document. We have consulted fully. This is what we have been doing. We have been considering, in consultation with education departments, the scope and nature of any service which local authorities may be required to provide and their relationship with the Manpower Services Commission which the Government propose to set up.
There is a commitment to an extension into the further educational field


for people with jobs, and this shows that there will be ample scope for opportunities for trained advisory staff.

Training

Mr. Gurden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many extra vocational training places his Department expects to provide in the Midlands during the coming year.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. R. Chichester-Clark): At least 800 additional training places are planned in the Department's Midlands region during the next 12 months, including about 520 in Government training centres.

Mr. Gurden: How does that compare with 1970, and what percentage of these trainees find jobs within three months of leaving training? Is the Minister aware of the dissatisfaction with some of the proposed changes in the Birmingham area?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me have the details of any cases involving dissatisfaction. In regard to what he said about a comparison with previous years, the number of GTC places has increased by 27 per cent. since January 1970, when there were 903 places—not an unsatisfactory record. There has been a vast improvement in the number of places at colleges and employers' establishments, which in the last year have increased to nearly 2,000, against only 26 places in 1970. About 88 per cent. of Government training centre trainees in the Midlands region are placed within three months of completing their course.

Mr. Ashton: Why are there six Questions at the beginning of the Order Paper ail relating to industrial training? Why cannot the Minister answer them all together and, instead of giving lengthy statistics orally, publish them in the OFFICIAL REPORT? Has there been any packing of the Order Paper?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: As somebody who is deeply interested in training matters, I am grateful that at least on the Conservative benches there is great interest in the improving trend.

Mr. Carter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if there is dissatisfaction in Birmingham about industrial retraining facilities it is simply due to the fact that not enough places are available? What guarantee can he give that an increased number of places will be made available in the very near future?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Three new GTCs are planned—one in North-East Birmingham, a second in the Wolverhampton area, and a third elsewhere. There are six centres in existence and there are now more than 3,100 training places in GTCs, colleges and employers' establishments.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the decision in 1962 by the Conservative administration to cut training facilities in an effort to reduce public expenditure was one of the biggest blunders they made?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Whatever may have happened in 1962, I regard the Conservative record on this topic as very good in comparison with Labour's record.

Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many Government training centres serve the West Midlands area.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: There are four Government training centres in the West Midlands economic planning region, and two more are planned by 1975.

Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Will he consider siting a new GTC at Tamworth, which is a developing area? At present our nearest centres are at Nottingham and Handsworth.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says and I will go into the situation very carefully.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister not aware that against the massive industrial restructuring which will take place in the West Midlands in the next five or 10 years, the figure he has given is still somewhat pathetic? Will he do something within his Department to plan a further development of training centres? Will he consider placing one in the Black Country, so that it will be available for those who will have to be retrained when


closures and redundancies occur in that part of the world?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have already given indications of what will happen in the very near future in terms of new Government training centres in that area. While I am never satisfied with what one can do, I believe that there has been a great improvement. In fact, there has been an increase of 69 per cent. in the number of Government training centres since 1970 when there were only 389 places.

Sir P. Bryan: To what extent is the demand for training places being maintained in the Midlands and in the country in general?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The demand is still there, and in particular trades it is considerable. In certain trades there are waiting lists. We are watching the situation and doing all we can to stimulate places in those areas.

Mr. Golding: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the high level of unemployment in the West Midlands that creates the need for these centres, not only in Tamworth but in almost every area in the West Midlands? What provision is he making to ensure that the young person of 18 of the lowest ability can obtain employment and not be written off for life, as is now happening?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: We undertake in assisted areas a kind of semi-skilled training. On the point about vocational training, those in the category mentioned by the hon. Gentleman do not at this time come within that scheme. It is thought right that in the first instance employers should take the responsibility for training these people and should not be discouraged in any way from fulfilling that responsibility. There are exceptions, and they include the disabled.

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many extra vocational training places his Department expects to provide during the next 12 months.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: My Department expects to provide about 9,000 additional vocational training places during the next 12 months, including over 3,000 in Government training centres.

Mr. Redmond: Is there any indication that the increased amount of training is helping to reconcile severe unemployment with severe shortages of labour in certain industries, particularly in places like Bolton? Furthermore, is the amount of training having any effect on that strange statistic known as the female activity rate?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The object is to try to cure those bottlenecks in the economy which have caused rather more general destruction to the economy in the past. It is also aimed at affording opportunity to those who, for one reason or another, at an earlier stage in their lives have missed those opportunities. It is to facilitate people who want to change their jobs during their working lives and to give encouragement to married women who, having reared their children, wish to go back to work.

Mr. Ashton: Too long.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am sorry it the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) thinks my answer too long. I regard this matter as important. On the question of vocational training, I can tell the House that there are now about 4,000 women under this sort of training, compared with just over 300 in 1970.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that much more remains to be done, especially in the London area, where in Brixton alone the number of unemployed has increased by 55 per cent. since 1962? The figures are quite shocking.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have been aware for some time of the problems of vocational training in London and I am having a special effort made in that context.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that I am very much in favour of vocational training? Does he give any consideration to the types of job for which people have to be trained? Can he assure the House that as regards Lanarkshire especially he will provide the necessary people for the jobs which have not yet come to us?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: We are always reviewing the courses in specific areas to see whether they meet the needs of industry and the needs of those who wish to be trained.

Birmingham

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure of unemployment for Birmingham.

Mr. Dudley Smith: On 8th January there were 23,827 people unemployed in the Birmingham travel-to-work area and the rate of unemployment was 3·7 per cent. The figures are provisional.

Mr. Carter: is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a disgraceful reply, coming as it does one month after he told me, in a similar answer on an earlier occasion, that I was being too gloomy about unemployment in Birmingham? Is he further aware that over the past month unemployment rose by over 700 and among that total there are still 1,000 boys and girls in Birmingham who have yet to start their first jobs?

Mr. Smith: There was an increase. but that is expected at this time of the year whatever the conditions. I still think that the hon. Gentleman is being gloomy, because between January 1972 and this month unemployment fell by nearly a fifth in the Birmingham travel-to-work area, largely through a reduction in male unemployment. Notified vacancies for the same period are 90 per cent. higher than they were. This is a fairly good and improving position.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that although the figure is of concern it is a welcome drop compared with the figure of 28,500 or 4·4 per cent. unemployed in Birmingham 13 months ago? Will he also look at a problem that is causing increasing concern in the area, namely, the level of unemployment among young coloured people? Will he give this matter his personal attention, because it has serious social consequences?

Mr. Smith: I assure my hon. Friend that we are not complacent in any way about the figure; it is still too high, but the trend is in the right direction. The problem of young coloured workers does not apply only to Birmingham, but is a problem in other areas. We are looking at the problem and there are no easy solutions, but I hope that through the Department and other agencies we shall be able to improve the situation in due course.

Industrial Disputes

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of working days lost through industrial action, including all forms of strikes and stoppages, during 1972 as compared with the four preceding years; and what is the percentum increase in 1972, compared with 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: As the reply consists of a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will not my right hon. Friend lift the corner of the carpet and confess the position as it truly is, namely, that the 1972 figures were the worst in our industrial history, notably on account of the coal mining strike and because a greater number of days were lost in 1972 than in any single calendar year on record? Will not my right hon. Friend confess that fact to the House?

Mr. Macmillan: What my hon. Friend says is perfectly true——

Sir G. Nabarro: That is the point.

Mr. Macmillan: Comparing 1972 with 1968 the figures of days lost are up by 400 per cent. About half of that increase took place between 1968 and 1970 and rather under half took place between between 1970 and 1972.

Mr. Orme: While allowing for those figures, will not the right hon. Gentleman now admit that the Industrial Relations Act is the basis of many of the problems which exist in British industry, that the Government have got the confrontation that they have sought, and that the counter-inflation measure now going through this House will only make the position worse? In consequence, will not he now drop the Industrial Relations Act and get back to real consultation and collective bargaining upon which relations between the trade union movement and the employers are based?

Mr. Macmillan: The great majority of strikes have nothing at all to do with the Industrial Relations Act. Indeed, 90 per cent. of them take place over pay. Of the days lost, as my hon. Friend the


Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) pointed out, about 45 per cent. were due to the coal mining stoppage, and about two-thirds of the total affected coal miners, building workers and dock workers.

Mr. Adam Butler: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the actual number of strikes was very much down last year?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes. The number of stoppages beginning in a year and the number in progress in a year went down consistently from 1970 to 1972.

Mr. Prentice: Do not the figures confirm two facts—first, that the failure of this Government in industrial relations is greater than that of any other post-war Government and, secondly, that year by year since this Government have been in office the situation has got steadily worse? Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that this has nothing to do with the Industrial Relations Act and with the Government's confrontation policies? If the right hon. Gentleman persists in that view, to what does he attribute this sad decline in industrial relations under his Government?

Mr. Macmillan: The figures do not bear out what the right hon. Gentleman says. Comparing the years between 1968 and 1970, for example, the number of stoppages starting in those years rose by 64 per cent. The number of stoppages starting between 1970 and 1972 fell by 36 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Twister."] I am not twisting the figures. The number of stoppages in progress in the period from 1968 to 1970 fell by 20 per cent. From 1970 to 1972 they fell by 4·8 per cent.

The following is the information:
The official series of statistics relates only to stoppages of work due to industrial disputes connected with terms and conditions of employment, and not to stoppages for other reasons.

Working days lost (millions)
Percentage increase to 1972


1968
…
…
…
4·7
410


1969
…
…
…
6·8
249


1970
…
…
…
11·0
118


1971
…
…
…
13·6
76


1972
…
…
…
23·9
—

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of days lost in industrial dispute in 1972; and what was the last year in

which this total of days lost was previously reached.

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many days were lost through strikes during 1972.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The provisional total of working days lost in 1972 was 23·9 million. This total was last exceeded in 1926.

Mr. Ashton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are surprised at that? We thought that it was the highest number since Wat Tyler and the peasants' rebellion? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the figures are likely to be on Budget day this year, when the civil servants come out on strike? Is not it about time that we decided to amend this absolutely ridiculous Act?

Mr. Macmillan: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Industrial Relations Act, it has nothing to do with it. The number of days lost were, as I have said, largely due to the coal mining strike and to the building workers' and the dock workers' disputes, all of which were strikes about pay and conditions.

Mr. Awdry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many strikes are organised not by responsible trade union leaders but by small groups of militants behind the scenes? Why is it that the Opposition will not occasionally acknowledge this, instead of helping the militants?

Mr. Macmillan: The attitude of the Opposition and their delight in the effect of national stoppages is unfortunate. I repeat: this has nothing to do with the Industrial Relations Act or with the Government's industrial relations policy. But the number of days lost last year exceeded the numbers in previous years due to a relatively small number of disputes over pay.

Mr. Frederick Lee: When the right hon. Gentleman's Government were advocating industrial relations legislation, it was on the proposition that it would reduce the number of days lost by strikes in industry? Would he now care to indulge in a little enterprise in this matter—it might even be termed "collective bargaining"—by offering to rescind the whole Act in exchange for an undertaking


from the trade unions to look a little more pleasantly at the possibility of cooperation in present policies?

Mr. Macmillan: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have made it plain in our consultations and in this House that we are ready at any time to consider serious proposals for improving the working of the Industrial Relations Act. We are prepared to consider any complaints about the way in which it impinges upon trade unions and their members. Those unions which have used the Act have found it of advantage to their members. If the unions do not use the facilities under the Act they cannot take advantage of it.

Mr. Idris Owen: Do the figures which my right hon. Friend has given include the number of days lost in the recent dispute affecting the building industry? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of those who were forced to come out on strike did so because of intimidation and not out of desire?

Mr. Macmillan: It is true that the building strike was exacerbated by forms of industrial action which have been deplored by the trade union movement and by both sides of the House.

Mr. Harper: In view of the fact that the miners' strike has been referred to as being one of the main causes of the numbers being so high, is the Secretary of State aware that that dispute was caused by the incompetence of the Government and the arrogance of the Prime Minister in not judging the situation as it ought to have been judged? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Prime Minister had judged it aright there would not have been one ton of coal or one day's work lost?

Mr. Macmillan: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the situation.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if one of our freedoms is the right to strike, which can be misused, an equal freedom is the right to resist strikes, and that if there were more resistance perhaps there would be fewer strikes?

Mr. Macmillan: The Industrial Relations Act specifically protects the right of

work-people to strike, but it also protects the right of people to get to work if they wish to do so.

Mr. Prentice: Following the question about the miners' strike by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper), does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that either the Wilberforce Report was completely wrong in its conclusions or the Government were fundamentally wrong in the attitude that they took to that strike? It would be more honest of Ministers to look back on that period and to admit that they made appalling mistakes which cost the country dearly.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is not good enough for him to say that he is willing to discuss amendments to the Industrial Relations Act? The Government introduced this legislation against all informed advice. Therefore, it is now the Government's responsibility to rescue the country from the mess in which it finds itself as a result of that mistake.

Mr. Macmillan: I do not accept that the Industrial Relations Act is the cause of any mess in which the country may be as a result of industrial disputes or action. Neither do I accept that the proposition initially put forward by the right hon. Gentleman is necessarily correct. Indeed, even if it were, I do not accept that it necessarily justifies the degree of industrial action or the methods of picketing used in the miners' strike.

Dismissals

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many complaints of alleged unfair dismissal, under Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 have been made to industrial tribunals since 28th February 1972; and of those where inquiries have been completed, how many complaints have been upheld.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: In the period from 28th February to 29th December 1972 the industrial tribunals referred 6,863 complaints of alleged unfair dismissal to conciliation officers of my Department. Of these, 1,153 were settled by conciliation and 1,857 were withdrawn.
Of the 733 complaints heard and determined by the tribunals up to 25th August 1972, 210 were upheld.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for the figures. Does he agree that the rights of the individual are now far better protected against unfair dismissal? If so, does he think that it would be a good thing for trade unions to encourage any of their members who feel that they have a grievance to go to the industrial tribunals instead of opting out of all responsibility?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If hon. Members opposite cannot bring themselves to realise the efficacy of the rest of the Act, they might acknowledge that this is of great help to individuals. I am sure that they will respond to my hon. Friend's plea that they should encourage their trade union friends to co-operate in making this process work and in helping complainants to put their cases.

Mr. Heffer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this part of the Act, which was originally drafted by the Labour Government, is the only part which is of any use whatsoever, and that during the industrial relations battle in this House the Opposition in no way opposed this part of the legislation but felt that in order to get full co-operation it was absolutely essential that all the other parts of it be totally withdrawn by the Government?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I have listened to this "old hat" from the hon. Gentleman for a very long time. I do not agree with what he said about the rest of the Act. When the Labour Government produced proposals on this matter the maximum compensation which would have been awardable was infinitely less than that which is now awardable under our legislation.

Unemployed Persons (Study)

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the terms of reference of the working group to study the characteristics of the unemployed.

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether the report of the working group to study

the characteristics of the unemployed will be published and, if so, when.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The working group will make detailed and objective studies of the characteristics of the unemployed and will also consider what extra information can be obtained to improve our understanding of these characteristics. I will arrange for any results of general interest to be published, but I do not think it advisable to set a time limit to this important work.

Mr. Howell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he tell us more about this working group? Does it consist only of civil servants? Are they all from his Department? What provision has been made for hon. Members and other people to give evidence to this working group?

Mr. Smith: The main burden of the work will fall on officials of Government Departments—my Department, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys. The work will be largely technical, but it will cover a wide range. The criteria to be considered will include all the usual questions—age, sex, duration of current spell of unemployment, time in last job, the reasons for leaving the last job, the occupation, past spells of unemployment, whether a person is in receipt of an occupational pension, and many other matters too numerous to go into at this moment. As I said, it will be largely technical, but it will be extremely valuable in the longer term. We shall be pleased to hear from any hon. Member who would care to contact us. preferably in writing, because the group wishes to see us, and I will arrange it.

Mr. Shaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that this group will look into the special problems of the unemployed in seaside towns, particularly with regard to seasonal unemployment and opportunities for young people?

Mr. Smith: Yes. This is an important point. I will certainly call its attention to the problem of seaside workers. The list that I gave includes occupational pensions, age groups, and so on. This applies particularly to areas like Scarborough and Whitby. I hope the


group will be very thorough in its investigations.

Mr. Golding: Will this survey cover those without work who live on unearned incomes, or is it to be confined only to those who are registered unemployed?

Mr. Smith: It will be confined primarily to those who are registered unemployed. We are also looking generally at the whole problem of those who are unemployed but who may not necessarily be registered for various reasons. Primarily it will be those who are on the register, because their need is obviously the greatest.

Manpower Services Commission

Mr. Kinsey: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he proposes to introduce legislation to set up the Manpower Services Commission.

Mr. Macmillan: As soon as possible.

Mr. Kinsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, I hope that it will be sooner than possible, because this commission is so important to our manpower resources and to his future plans for dealing with redundancy and unemployment problems in the country today.

Mr. Macmillan: I fully accept the importance of the Manpower Services Commission. I intend to set it up as soon as possible after the necessary legislation has been passed through Parliament. I hope to publish the Bill in a month or two.

Mr. Concannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the situation now appertaining in the knitwear industry—I can speak only for the Mansfield hosiery mills—as we are possibly on the verge of the first racial strike to take place in this country, with a view to asking the Home Secretary to turn over certain of his powers to the commission?

Mr. Macmillan: The Manpower Services Commission will not be concerned. initially at any rate, with that sort of problem. I am aware of the difficulties. The House will be aware that there was a difficult situation in another part of the country not long ago. Fortunately, it was resolved by an inquiry

which was set up and dealt with it very speedily.

Sir P. Bryan: When the Commission is fully established will it be the direct employer of the staff at the employment centres, the GTCs, the ITBs, and so on. or will they be employed and paid by the Department?

Mr. Macmillan: We are now discussing this matter with the staff side. Their position and status are fully secure and, whichever way round the actual detail is worked, it will be worked out in agreement with the staff side concerned.

Industrial Relations Training

Mr. John Page: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations his Department has had with other interested bodies on the recommendations made in the Commission on Industrial Relations report on industrial relations training.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Discussions have already started with the education Departments and the Commission on Industrial Relations. A meeting with senior officials of industrial training boards has been arranged for mid-February and approaches are being made to other principal bodies concerned.

Mr. Page: I do not think that I fully heard the reply from my hon. Friend because of the noise. However, will he give an assurance that, whatever changes are made in the methods of industrial training, industrial relations training will not be shut out?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: No; indeed, my hon. Friend was not able to hear the whole reply. What I said—this meets his concern, which I fully understand—was that there would be a meeting between senior officials and industrial training boards in mid-February to discuss these very subjects.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Would not the Minister agree that it would be a good thing for his right hon. Friend to take a short, sharp crash course in industrial relations training, which might prevent his taking such arbitrary action as forbidding the management of the British gas industry to negotiate with the unions without any legislative power to do so?


It cannot be denied that this decision has clearly caused the present disruption in the gas industry.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: That is rather a different question. My right hon. Friend did not in fact forbid anyone. But in regard to courses on industrial relations training, I hope that there are some who will look at the motes in their own eyes.

Small Firms (Levy)

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has received from industrial boards to exclude more small firms from the payment of levy.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: A number of industrial training boards have submitted their intial proposals and others are expected to do so in the next few weeks. These proposals are being considered by my Department and will in some cases require further discussion with boards.

Mr. Skeet: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. As very small firms have already been exempted from the levy, will he consider exempting all small firms, pursuant to the recommendations of the Bolton Report? Will he also define exactly what a small firm is, in terms of numbers of employees or turnover?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The Bolton Committee defined a small firm in a manufacturing industry as one with up to 200 employees. I think that that is well known. As for criteria concerning exemptions, we recognise—and probably the whole House recognises—that the definition of a small firm can be something quite different in each industry. That is why it is right to have discussions with the boards about their con-consideration as to what constitutes a small firm.

Mr. Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the best results of the Industrial Training Act is the large number of small firms which have come into active training for the first time in the form of group training schemes, partly because of the levy rebate system, and that if he exempts too many small firms he will do great damage to training opportunities in this country? Will he not move too far down this road?

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's point and, of course, it is taken into consideration. What lie says is true, but, equally, there are those small firms which probably should not be within the scope of these boards and exempted. Also, we have to take into account the amount of bureaucracy involved. What we are trying to do is to achieve a balance between good training and removing some of the bureaucracy.

Seasonal Statistics

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the number of adults unemployed, seasonally adjusted, during the last three months; and how this compares with the same period in each of the past six years.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the number of adult vacancies, seasonally adjusted, during the last three months; and how this compares with the same period in each of the past six years.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Between October 1972 and January 1973 the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment fell by 61,000, whilst the corresponding level of unfilled vacancies notified for adults rose by 35,800. I will publish the comparable figures for earlier years in the OFFICIAL
REPORT.

Mr. Costain: Does my hon. Friend realise that this is very good news and indicates the success of the Government's policy? Does he appreciate that hon. Members on the Opposition benches are disappointed at good news because they base their policies on hate and envy and when we get good news it makes them look "proper Charlies"?

Mr. Smith: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The position is improving considerably. It is underlined by the lack of Questions on this subject tabled for today by hon. Members of the Opposition.

Mr. Fernyhough: The Under-Secretary says that the position is improving. Will he tell me when it will have improved enough for him to be able to define what I would call an acceptable level of unemployment?

Mr. Smith: No, I think that it would be wrong to try to define acceptable levels of unemployment. We have always said that if the figure was too high we would take steps immediately to bring it down. The successes of the Government's policy are absolutely apparent today from the figures I have given.

Following is the information:


CHANGE IN SEASONALLY ADJUSTED LEVELS BETWEEN OCTOBER AND JANUARY COUNT DATES


Thousands


Years
Unemployment excluding adult students and school leavers (but including other young persons)
unfilled notified vacancies for adults


1972–73
…
-61·00
†35·8


1971–72
…
†54·8
†0·3


1970–71
…
†40·3
-21·5


1969–70
…
†9·6
-1·5


1968–69
…
-15·0
†6·9


1967–68
…
†10·0
†2·1


1966–67
…
†92·5
-33·3

MURUROA ATOLL

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit of Mururoa Atoll.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Prime Minister disapprove of the French nuclear tests?

The Prime Minister: The position of the British Government, like their predecessor, is well known on the question of nuclear tests in the air. We wish all countries to sign the partial test ban treaty which will prevent tests in the air, and we voted for the resolution during the last Assembly of the United Nations to this effect.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend realise that a British Crown Colony, namely, Pitcairn Island, is in the direct area of these nuclear tests and is already suffering from serious fall-out difficulties, which apparently have been rejected for attention by the British Government and the only resident plenipotentiary that we have on the island? Will my right hon. Friend direct his attention to the needs of the Pitcairn Islanders?

The Prime Minister: The Government's attention has been constantly addressed to the needs of the Pitcairn Islanders. The Commissioner for Pitcairn has visited the island each year and, as my hon. Friend knows, a Royal Air Force team has been on Pitcairn specifically to see whether there was any evidence of health hazard as a result of these tests, and the team carried out radiological surveys there. This is the arrangement we have carried out each time we have had notification of any tests. I must tell my hon. Friend—I hope that he will not create unnecessary alarm—that the RAF team has not found evidence of the damage to which he refers.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is it not the case that at one time previous British Governments, with the full support of both sides of the House, protested against nuclear tests when conducted by the Russian Government? Will not the Prime Minister summon up the courage and national dignity to protest with equal force against the test being carried out by the French Government?

The Prime Minister: What we did as a result of the Russian tests was to negotiate with the United States in 1963 for the partial test ban treaty. The then Conservative Government played a very prominent part in getting that treaty and urging other countries to sign it. That is still our position. We reinforced it by our vote for the resolution aft the United Nations at the last Assembly.

Mr. Harold Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman does not make any public protests about this, will he say whether, in his regular private exchanges with the President of France, he has expressed the opinion of the British Government?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that were I to make public what took place in a private exchange it would no longer be a private exchange.

Mr. Wilson: There are many precedents under both the right hon. Gentleman—[Laughter.] I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen find this question a laughing matter. There are many precedents under successive Governments on this subject. Will the right hon. Gentle-


man say whether he has made any protest?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect me—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—to make public any of the contents of any private discussions, any more than he himself did when he was Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNTER-INFLATION PROPOSALS

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the progress of the Government's anti-inflation policy; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Gilbert Longden: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the talks he has had during the recess with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress regarding future policy for regulating prices and incomes.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friends to the answer which I gave in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 25th January.—[Vol. 849, c. 637–8.]

Mr. Lamont: In any prices and incomes policy is not the maintenance of profit margins important for employment and investment? Will my right hon. Friend not agree that in all the items of left luggage published as a Labour Party policy document yesterday, the proposals for a voluntary wages policy and compulsory prices policy are the most damaging?

Mr. Russell Kerr: Spoken like a merchant banker!

The Prime Minister: In the talks that we had with the TUC and the CBI during the autumn and at the begining of this year it was accepted as essential that there should be sufficient profitability to enable increasing investment to take place because it was necessary to maintain growth after our present resources are used up in the expansion which is now taking place. The objective of phase 2 and particularly phase 3 of the policy will be to ensure that the profitability is sufficient for that. At the same time, I believe that everyone agrees that there is no justification for excessive profitability because of increased

prices due to dearer raw materials or because of the increased turnover which a large part of industry is enjoying with the expansion of the economy. It is a question of keeping a balance in this respect.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Does my right hon. Friend not feel that we might enjoy better industrial relations if he were to propose a charter guaranteeing to all employees among other conditions of service a fair share in the profits of the joint enterprise; a right to joint consultation before automation is introduced or mergers are proposed; a right to retraining at public expense in the event of inevitable redundancy; and a transferable contributory pension?

The Prime Minister: I believe that three out of the four points are covered by the Code of Industrial Relations Practice, and I believe that many good firms in this country follow the practice put forward by my hon. Friend, which I personally strongly support, as do the Government. There are probably a few firms which operate profit-sharing arrangements. It is at the moment a matter for individual firms. It was put to the CBI and the TUC during the talks that we would welcome far greater participation by trade union members and officials in securing progress towards increasing profitability and in ensuring better management. I believe that that is the modern approach.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the Prime Minister now come clean about the Government briefing that led to the disastrous speculation on 21st January about the rigours of phase 3 of the Government's counter-inflation policy?

The Prime Minister: I explained the position very clearly to the House during the debate. I have sent a letter in answer to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John Grant). His letter has been published in the Press and there is no reason why mine should not be. It shows that directly after the White Paper was published the Press correctly interpreted it and many correspondents drew attention to the fact that it is preferable to have the same improvement in real earnings from lower levels of price and wage increases. That is surely the objective of all anti-inflationary policies.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the Prime Minister now attempt to answer the question on profit margins which the Secretary of State for Employment somehow omitted to answer yesterday? Most companies will not know at the beginning of the year what their profit margins will be at the end, so to whom do they give back their surplus profits?

The Prime Minister: From his own professional experience the hon. Member knows that most firms monitor their profitability as they proceed through the year, and the fact that this power will reside with the board means that it will take particular care to ensure that it is not put in the position of having to deal with excess profitability.

Mr. Ridley: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that the level of investment in British industry is deplorably low and that it is not statements made or alleged to have been made by Mr. Slater or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State which have caused the present collapse in the Stock Market? Will he agree that it is the prospects for profits which are worrying investors? Will he in particular ensure in stage 3 that conditions are created in which high levels of investment can be achieved.

The Prime Minister: I agree to a certain extent with what my right hon. Friend said. It has been constantly impressed upon industry that one of the major reasons for low levels of investment is the fear of inflation. Therefore, if we are to secure more investment we must show clearly that inflation is being dealt with and if we can do that we stand a chance of success. If the Stock Exchange feels that inflation will be dealt with and therefore there is less speculation in equities, it is encouraging.

Mr. John Grant: The Prime Minister was most evasive both in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) and in the letter which the Prime Minister sent to me. Will he confirm that what he told my right hon. Friend in his speech last week was not true, and that there was ministerial action which led to the speculative reports, which, in turn, led to the speculation on the Stock Exchange?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member's comments are absolutely unjustifiable. I told the House that there had been no ministerial briefing to the effect that phase 3 was to be tougher than phase 2. That was the situation, and it remains so. I am perfectly happy for my letter to be published in full and I will see that it is done so that people can judge for themselves. If the hon. Member examines an account by one industrial correspondent in The Times today he will see that there is nothing there to support his allegations.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if he will now seek an early opportunity to address the European Assembly on the subject of British participation.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) on 25th January.—[Vol. 849, c. 643–4.]

Mr. Redmond: Is it not important that there should be a high-powered and a high-level follow-up to the initiative shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) and his colleagues at the European Parliament? It is said to have shaken European MPs out of their complacency.

The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend's speech has been warmly welcomed throughout Europe and, in particular, in the European Parliament. [Laughter.] It shows the uneasiness of the Opposition when all they can do is laugh. They belong to a party which has opted out of everything in the modern world and which is opting out of Europe, and I am quite prepared to say that it is a loss.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Whether the right hon. Gentleman makes his address or not, is he in a position, having considered it, to answer the question that I put last week? What guidance can he give to this House—to which he is responsible, as we all are—as to how it can, operating with its representation to the Council of Ministers, deal with man-


datory decisions in Europe about our having to accept doctors and other professionals with totally inadequate qualifications, which we have always rejected?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must be given the same answer. It is done through our representation on the Council of Ministers. He knows perfectly well what the system is. He accepted it when he was supporting entry into Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST LANCASHIRE

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to South-East Lancashire.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Meacher: Perhaps it is a pity on this occasion, since the right hon. Gentleman could see that South-East Lancashire has the most old-fashioned and industrial property in the country. Is the Prime Minister aware that the industrial redevelopment of the North-West will never approach its potential until the scope of the dereliction clearance grants is extended to cover disused, eyesore industrial properties? How long will Lancashire continue to be penalised for having originated the Industrial Revolution?

The Prime Minister: In this case I agree with the hon. Member's general thesis. He must realise, however, that no Government have done more than this one to provide inducements and resources to enable the complete regeneration of the North-West to take place.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS INDUSTRY (PAY)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of the letter he sent to the General and Municipal Workers' Union concerning its wage negotiation with the Gas Council during the standstill.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) on 23rd January.—[Vol. 849, c. 122.]

Mr. Ashton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the day after the letter was sent to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell) said that it had no force of law and, in effect, that it was a sham and a nonsense. A few days later the Prime Minister changed his proposals and admitted that negotiations could take place. Was the letter a bluff? Did the Prime Minister have it in mind to change things later, or had he lost control completely?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should be more accurate in his statements. The position I set out in the letter to Lord Cooper in answer to one he had written me—I did not take the initiative—was to ask that these negotiations should not take place beyond the point of settlement until the guidelines for phase 2 had been published. On the day that they were published the negotiations were able to start. That was a consistent position. What is more, it was a reasonable request.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Prime Minister now accept that in his letter to Lord Cooper he gave the same kind of general guidance as that which was given by the Secretary of State when he briefed the Press? Will the right hon. Gentleman now accept that both messages were equally misunderstood?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept either of those statements.

Mr. Moyle: As Joint Secretary of the National Joint Industrial Council for the gas industry, I put it to the Prime Minister that there has never been such widespread interruption in gas supplies this century until he put his big fat foot into it. Is it not true that the greatest success of the Government is creating militancy where none existed before in local authorities, gas workers, the health workers and the civil servants?

The Prime Minister: I can quite see that the hon. Gentleman wishes to encourage militancy wherever he can. The position was that we asked that negotiations should not go beyond the point of settlement, or up to the point of settlement, until the guidelines were issued. I cannot see anything unreasonable in that at all. If there had been a settlement


which proved to be in excess of what was contained in phase 2 the hon. Gentleman would have said that friction was being caused in the gas industry because a settlement had been reached which was not permitted under stage 2.
It was to avoid that friction that the request was made.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman's memory quite correct in what he has just said? He said that his letter asked that the talks should not go to the point of settlement. Is it not a fact that he asked that they should not reach a meaningful stage, in fact, to the point of an offer by the employers? Is not that what he said? Will the right hon. Gentleman check his memory on another point he raised—namely, that at the time he justified it as amounting to a direction, and answered a Question in the House as to the authority by which he did this, yet shortly afterwards his office put out that the letter was only a suggestion? Will the right hon. Gentleman make up his mind which of these statements, which were made at different times, was the true one?

The Prime Minister: I have never claimed that it was a direction under the Act. That was never claimed by the Government and it was not stated to be so in the letter. That has never been a point of issue. I have here the letter to Lord Cooper. The right hon. Gentleman is correct to this extent. I said:
Negotiations whether in the public or private sectors should not be carried to the point of offers of improved remuneration.
But that did not exclude, as we explained to Lord Cooper and the TUC, discussion about any other aspect of conditions of employment which they wished to raise. It is well known that in the gas industry there are a considerable number of other matters which are under discussion between the employers and the union and we said specifically that they would continue.

Mr. Tom King: Would not my right hon. Friend have been open to greater criticism if, having been approached by Lord Cooper on this matter, he had refused to give the Government's view on it, which was quite clearly sensible guidance?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. If I had refused to answer Lord Cooper's letter I would have been open to attack on that ground.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Has the Prime Minister any legislative authority to intervene as he did in the manner of the negotiations? Will he understand that no one will ever believe him if he attempts to suggest, as he did in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle), that there are a lot of "reds" in the gas industry? No one will believe that Jack Cooper and company are "reds". Will the right hon. Gentleman now come clean and honestly admit that the disruption we are now seeing in the gas industry is directly of his making and not of the unions' making?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite unrealistic on this matter. Lord Cooper wrote to me and asked for the view of the Government on the matter, and I gave it to him. It was a perfectly reasonable view that the unions and employers should wait until the guidelines for stage 2 were issued, which was not a very long time. It was only just six weeks after Parliament passed the legislation imposing the freeze. Is it too long, in that situation, to ask that the unions and the employers should both wait until the guidelines on remuneration were published? In any case they were both informed that it would not be possible to implement anything until the end of the standstill. There was plenty of time for them to negotiate between the announcement of stage 2 and the end of the standstill. It was a perfectly reasonable request to make.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for correcting the small point which I raised a moment ago. However, is he aware that the impression given by his letter was not, "Is it too long to wait a few days?". It was regarded by everyone as an instruction—not under the Act, certainly. When questioned he said that it was on the authority of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. It was not understood as asking whether it was too long to wait.
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that his letter was interpreted as having the usual relationship between the Government and nationalised industries,


and that he was not going to allow an offer to be made? Will he ask Lord Cooper's permission to publish the whole of the correspondence? Will he let us know what was later said when the pretence was put forward that it was just a polite request?

The Prime Minister: As far as I know, all the correspondence has already been published. The letter from Lord Cooper to me was published when he sent it. My reply to Lord Cooper has also been published. [Interruption.] It is in the Library. As far as I know, there is nothing else to be published. However, I am quite prepared to make a further check.
I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this was unreasonable

Of course, it was sent on the authority of the Head of Government and the Government, because it was the Government's reply to Lord Cooper's letter. It is a strange idea that nothing can be done by a Government except through legislation. The Government are perfectly entitled to express their view to Lord Cooper and to the gas industry. As I have stated, it was a Cabinet decision to do so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on the Second Reading of the Atomic Energy Authority (Weapons Group) Bill [Lords] not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Prior.]

MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING BILL

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the regulation of the practice of multi-level marketing; and for purposes connected therewith.
During the last Session I introduced a similar Bill which was basically designed to provide standards for this new form of selling which is often referred to as pyramid selling. My original interest in this type of marketing was aroused by newspaper reports of abuses which were occurring. It seems that although this new competitive form of private enterprise could provide a healthy stimulus to the market place, it was essential that it did not involve unnecessary loss and distress to people who invested in such companies.
When my Bill was printed last year I had considerable correspondence and discussion with a wide variety of interested groups and persons. As a result, I made a number of changes in the present Bill. It now provides for a cooling-off period between a contract being signed and its coming into operation. This will more closely conform to the present law affecting hire-purchase agreements signed on the doorstep. I believe that it is a fair requirement to make. The buy-back clause now requires 90 per cent. repayment instead of two-thirds where the applicant has satisfied the conditions laid down in Clause 4.
A new clause is now inserted to require that each company shall set up a trust fund representing 21 per cent. of its annual turnover, the terms of the fund to be agreed with the Public Trustee. I believe that this meets the views put to me that a person may be able to prove his

entitlement to buy back but find that no funds are available to meet his claims. The trust fund would at least meet that point.
Already one company has voluntarily set up a trust fund of £100,000, and I agreed to be one of the two trustees. A great deal has ben said about that by the mass media, particularly BBC programmes. To end any misunderstanding, I want to state that I am a completely independent trustee with no financial interest whatsoever in any company involved in multi-level marketing.
There are hon. Members who by motions on the Order Paper and other means have shown that they will be satisfied with nothing less than the complete banning of multi-level marketing. But I should not like to ban a system which has given many people a new start in life and the challenge of creating their own business. It is also a system capable of marketing a product in competition with near-monopolies. That cannot be bad for the consumer, because it Gives him a wider choice.
We should not hem in and restrict those who desire to make something of themselves, but we should lay down certain safeguards. The Bill sets out to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mawby, Mr. Drayson, Mr. Ford, Mr. Bray, Mr. Bowden, Mr. Roger White and Mr. Fred Evans.

MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING

Bill to provide for the regulation of the practice of multi-level marketing; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 23rd February and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

ORDER OF THE DAY

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (WEAPONS GROUP) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.42 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to transfer from the Atomic Energy Authority to the Ministry of Defence the activities of the Authority's Weapons Group, together with its associated lands, premises, property and so on. In practice this means the transfer of the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston, its outstations and its activities.
As the House will remember, work on the research and development of nuclear weapons started after the last war mostly in what is now the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment. However, the facilities needed were so extensive and so specialised that a separate research establishment at Aldermaston was set up. All this formed part of the then Ministry of Supply, but with the creation of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in 1954 the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston was taken out of the Civil Service and formed the basis of the Weapons Group. This group now comprises not only the establishment at Aldermaston but also an outstation at Foulness, and a few small units mostly in the Aldermaston area. About 80 per cent. of its efforts is in the research, development and production of explosive nuclear devices for use in nuclear weapons.
The transfer we are proposing will be an important step in the overall rationalisation of our defence research and development establishments. As the House knows, the fundamental recommendation of the report prepared by Sir Derek Rayner was that defence procurement activities embracing all stages of all defence procurement from research through to production should be brought together into a single organisation within the Ministry of Defence, and it is an essential feature of the procurement

executive we have set up that all the research and development establishments concerned with defence are brought together under a single management. Apart from other advantages, this has enabled a start to be made on rationalising the facilities and resources of the various establishments.
One of Sir Derek Rayner's recommendations was, of course, that the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment should be brought within the Ministry of Defence. That is what the Bill does. I shall deal with the wider issues which have been raised by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in a few minutes' time. But I should like first to deal with the detailed points in the Bill.
Clause 1 gives effect to the main purpose of the Bill. It provides that from the appointed day those activities of the Weapons Group which involve work on explosive nuclear devices will be carried out by the Ministry of Defence and not by the Authority, unless the Authority is specifically authorised or a contract placed with it to do such work. It also transfers the property and everything connected with the property of the group to the Secretary of State for Defence, with the exception of patents and other industrial property to which I will return later.
Clause 2 deals with the effects of the transfer on the people at present employed in the Weapons Group. We want all the people engaged on work now performed by the Weapons Group to continue their jobs in the Ministry of Defence, and the clause terminates their contracts of employment with the Authority and enables them to be taken into the Civil Service. There have been consultations with the Civil Service Commission, and all the Weapons Group employees will be offered immediate and continuing employment in the Civil Service.

Mr. David Mitchell: have a number of worried United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority workers in my constituency. Unlike the Civil Service, the Authority recruited people rather later in life, and these older men need the option to continue working until they are 65 to qualify for an adequate pension. Can my hon. Friend give me a complete assurance that they will have that option?

Mr. Gilmour: I am coming to the conditions of employment, but I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the establishments concerned is in my constituency, at Foulness, and that there has been anxiety among industrial employees there that their pay and conditions may be worsened, despite the assurances given by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State in another place. Can my hon. Friend assure me now that that will not be the case, and that before the Bill leaves this House steps will be taken to make that absolutely plain to the staff concerned?

Mr. Gilmour: As I have said, I am just coming to this point.
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have been consulting the staff and trade union representatives about the terms and conditions of service for staff who will be transferred, and I am happy to say that good progress has been made towards reaching agreement. Some adjustments to present terms and conditions are inevitable, but the principle on which we are acting has been laid down by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State in another place. This is where I can give my hon. Friend the specific assurance for which he has asked. The principle is that, taken as a whole, the terms and conditions of each individual after the transfer will be no less favourable than those provided for in existing contracts.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The negotiating committee apparently has not met since January 1972, and we are told that meetings in June and August were concerned with the interim payment and not long-term issues. I am willing to be told that this is a matter of no great substance, but I should like it to be cleared up.

Mr. Gilmour: There was agreement in principle with the trade union side in January 1972, and since then a grading exercise has been in progress to try to find the Civil Service equivalents of the various grades in the Authority. I understand that final agreement is very close, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that it has taken rather a long time.
The present position is that a general agreement covering the terms and conditions of service of industrial employees has been reached and that an agreement for non-industrial staff is at an advanced stage of preparation, in which only points of detail remain to be settled. The terms and conditions of non-industrial staff in the Authority and Civil Service are already very similar. There are, however, certain differences, the most important of which concern superannuation and retiring age. We have agreed that non-industrial staff should be able to remain in the Authority's pension scheme, with the associated pay and retiring age provisions, if they so wish. Clause 2 provides the necessary powers.
Clause 5, together with the Schedule, deals with the principles governing the exchange of information covered by patents and other technical information between the Secretary of State and the Authority. In general, the Bill leaves the ownership of existing patents and technical information with the Authority. This is because it has been found impracticable to segregate those patents which are relevant to the Weapons Group from those relevant to the civil activities of the Authority. There is, however, an important exception made under paragraph 3 of the Schedule, which is that information relating to explosive nuclear devices will become the property of the Ministry of Defence.
Clause 6 is a logical consequence of the decision to transfer AWRE and its activities away from the Authority. The Authority's powers under the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 to produce, use and dispose of atomic energy and to carry out research were subject to the restriction that they were not permitted to develop or to produce any weapon or part of a weapon except in accordance with arrangements made with the then Minister of Supply and now with the Secretary of State for Defence. However, Section 2(2) of the 1954 Act empowered the Authority to conduct on its own initiative experimental work which might lead to improved types of explosive nuclear assemblies for use in weapons.
Now that the responsibility for carrying out all work on explosive nuclear devices and the facilities for undertaking it are put into the Ministry of Defence this power is now redundant and is


repealed by Clause 6. Additionally, Clause 6 widens the prohibition placed on the Authority, in that it provides that it is not to undertake any work on explosive nuclear devices, whether for warlike applications or otherwise, except in accordance with arrangements made with the Secretary of State.
It is the Government's hope that we can complete the legislative process in time for the transfer to take effect from the coming 1st April. As early a date as possible is very desirable both for organisational reasons and in order to end any uncertainties for the staff concerned.
As I have already said, the work of the Weapons Group is predominantly military. That is why it is right to bring it into the Ministry of Defence alongside the other military research and development establishments under a single management organisation. We can then deploy our resources to meet the needs of defence programmes in the most efficient and flexible way. But, like other military research and development, the work of the Weapons Group has a link with civil developments, and in the past this has shown itself in worth while contributions to basic nuclear technology. Moreover, some of the specialised skills and facilities at Aldermaston have been used to advantage in certain aspects of the civil nuclear power programme. The most notable example is the contribution made by Aldermaston to the Authority's fast breeder reactor work.
It is the Government's intention that this work on the civil power programme, and other civil work of the kind which the Weapons Group has undertaken in the past for various customers, should continue uninterrupted, and the expertise and facilities at Aldermaston and its outstations will continue to be made available for this purpose under contractual arrangements made with the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Dalyell: As the hon. Gentleman emphasised, possibly rightly, the civil work done at Aldermaston, why were he and his colleagues so reluctant to allow hon. Members to go to look at non-classified work? If it is emphasised, why does he object to our looking at it?

Mr. Gilmour: I emphasised it because the predominant amount is in fact military. As I told the hon. Member in my letter, it is very difficult, virtually impossible, to abstract the civil from the military work and most of those concerned are engaged in different activities. As the hon. Member knows, this has been the position under all Governments.
I come back to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. When the Government announced their decision on this matter, the right hon. Gentleman told a rather startled House that this was not just an administration change
since it embodies changes of national policy of the very highest importance
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that
to put scientists working on nuclear weapons under the Minister responsible for their possible use is a major reversal of British policy over a long period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th August 1971; Vol. 822, c. 1860–62.]
Then, almost a year later, in July, 1972, the right hon. Gentleman said in the House,
…I strongly believed, that nuclear weapons should be under a civil Minister, as they are in America, under the Atomic Energy Commission, rather than being transferred to a Defence Ministry where they become part and parcel of a defence policy, without reference to their political implications".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1972; Vol. 840, c. 345.]
The right hon. Gentleman's remarks contain a number of confusions, misunderstandings, and errors about a variety of matters, including the constitutional position, the production of nuclear weapons, the circumstances in which they might be used, and the position of defence Ministers.
One of his major errors is to forget that our political system is one of collective responsibility. That is certainly the case in the nuclear field—even, I should imagine, the same applied under a Labour Government. There is no question of the Secretary of State for Defence having an entirely free hand either in the production or over the strategy and use of nuclear weapons.
As my right hon. and noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence, said in another place:
…in this very important area the responsibility for policy has been, and under the proposed new arrangements will continue to be, a collective responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. This applies as much to decisions


on the nuclear weapons programme as to decisions on strategy, and this responsibility would in no way be lessened by the measures now proposed. The Secretary of State for Defence is and will continue to be the departmental Minister responsible for giving effect to the government's approved policy."—OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 16th November 1972 Vol. 336, c. 827.]
The right hon. Gentleman's next confusion is about the existing position. AWRE is now and always has been essentially a defence establishment. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), who was, after all, a Defence Minister from 1968 to 1970, wrote in his book "The politics of Defence". recently published:
Although responsibility for the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston was nominally shared between the Ministry of Technology and the Ministry of Defence, this had little practical effect
So much for the right hon. Gentleman's claim that what we are doing now is
a major reversal of British policy over a long period".
In fact it is not a reversal at all, still less a major reversal.
The right hon. Gentleman is evidently also hopelessly confused about the part which AWRE plays in the cycle leading to the creation of an operational nuclear weapon. The operational nuclear weapon systems are already in the custody of and under the control of the Ministry of Defence. AWRE's role in the production of weapons is confined to the production of certain components of nuclear warheads. These have no military value until they are assembled with other complex mechanisms into effective working warheads. This assembly is undertaken in Ministry of Defence establishments and the AEA has never had anything whatever to do with it.
Furthermore, the nuclear warheads have to be incorporated into an effective means of delivery before they comprise an operational nuclear weapons system. This work, too, is organised and controlled by existing Ministry of Defence establishments, until they can hand over the operational nuclear weapon systems to the Armed Forces. So on practical and technical grounds as well as on political and constitutional ones, the right hon. Gentleman's claim that we are mak-

ing some great fundamental change is sheer fantasy.
If the right hon. Gentleman were right and the sponsorship of AWRE by another Minister were the only serious restraint upon the Secretary of State for Defence, then the present system might indeed be dangerous because, as I have shown, AWRE is concerned with only part of the production of nuclear weapons and on the right hon. Gentleman's hypothesis the Secretary of State for Defence would have a free hand over the rest of the process. But of course the right hon. Gentleman's premise that the divided responsibility over AWRE is important is quite wrong. His proposed safeguard is as illusory as is his alleged danger.
All that the transfer of AWRE to the Ministry of Defence will mean is that whereas it is now working under contract to the Ministry of Defence, in future it will receive its orders direct. The transfer represents no change of any significance in relation to the responsibility of Defence Ministers, on behalf of the Government, for the number, quality, and deployment of nuclear weapons.
My final proof of that proposition comes from the right hon. Gentleman himself. In March 1970 he published a Green Paper called "Industrial Research and Development in Government Laboratories, a New Organisation for the Seventies". In paragraph 19 of that paper, we find the following words:
It might be judged appropriate to transfer AWRE to the Civil Service, either to the Ministry of Defence or to the Ministry of Technology, when it might be possible to rationalise AWRE's work with that of other Research Establishments concerned with Defence".
As the House will have noted, there is no mention there of great constitutional issues or of major reversals of British policy. There is not even mention of the right hon. Gentleman's alleged strong belief that nuclear weapons should be under a civil Minister.
When the right hon. Gentleman was in office, he envisaged, with complete equanimity, the transfer of AWRE to the Ministry of Defence. All that has happened since that Green Paper was published—except of course that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind—is that all the other defence research establishments have been brought to-


gether into the procurement executive. In those circumstances even a Labour Government, indeed even a Labour Government with the right hon. Gentleman as the relevant Minister, could hardly have been so silly as to bring AWRE into the Civil Service and then place it all alone in the Ministry of Technology when all the other establishments were in the Ministry of Defence. In other words the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's own Green Paper leads straight to what we are proposing this afternoon.
I have dealt with this issue at some length, because 18 months ago the right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate about it in advance of Second Reading. It therefore seemed right to discuss the matter in detail.
In conclusion, as I have told the House, this is a simple, sound and sensible piece of administrative reform and northing more. As such I commend it to the House.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I am grateful to the Minister of State in that, when moving the Bill, at any rate he addressed himself to some of the arguments that I have raised on this matter, even though I found his presentation of those arguments worthy of further consideration. The Opposition is not opposing the Bill, although it raises important matters which it is right that we should be discussing.
The Minister described this as a "simple, sound and sensible" Bill in that it makes what is apparently a minor transfer of a defence establishment—because Aldermaston is primarily such an establishment—from the Atomic Energy Authority to the Ministry of Defence. Before 1955 the development of nuclear weapons was conducted under Civil Service auspices and therefore to some extent this represents a reversal of a previous practice. It follows also from the thinking of the Government about the way in which Government research and function should be exercised, namely that these should be linked as far as possible to the user Department.
We discussed this recently in our debate upon Rothschild, to which I will return, when we pointed out that a succession of Governments, including the last

one, progressively transferred research establishments to the relevant Department. The Road Research Laboratory was transferred to the Ministry of Transport, the Building Research Station to the Minister of Works and then the Department of the Environment and subsequently RAE Farnborough and RRE Malvern were moved, as a result of the inquiry set up by this Government, into the Department of Defence. As often happens over a period, Governments follow a developing pattern of thought about the organisation of business. That is understandable and natural.
It can be seen that there are other aspects in the Bill which merit some consideration. I want to turn to some of the points raised by various hon. Members in interventions during the Minister's speech. These interventions related to staff matters. The transfer even of British Nuclear Fuel staff from the AEA into a separate company, which was the first proposal for hiving off, one which came when I was the responsible Minister. caused considerable concern to the staff involved. The AEA had deservedly built up a worldwide reputation not only on the military side but on the civil side, dealing with reactors and some nonnuclear work. I pay tribute to the AEA and its staff. It felt that to break up this great unit was a mistake.
I must candidly admit—and the House knows it very well—that anxiety was expressed by it on that score at the time we brought forward our proposals. The Green Paper to which the hon. Gentleman referred—proposing a British Research and Development Corporation—which came out I believe three years ago this month, was an attempt, more general but related to nuclear weapons, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, to preserve all that was best in the AEA and to link that with the other establishments on the civil side.
Having said that, I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that when the Government set Rayner to work on his proposals I am assured that on the staff side there was no consultation with staff or even, as I understand it, much consultation with the AEA about the reorganisation of the Weapons Group. It is true that in the Green Paper, where we were talking about what would happen to the remains of the AEA if the British


Research and Development Corporation were set up, it became clear that the Weapons Group would not be appropriate in such a group. The Minister properly said that alternatives were put forward in the Paper for transfer back to the Civil Service, either to the Ministry of Technology or the Ministry of Defence.
This was not a substantial point in that the Paper was not about the Weapons Group of the defence side. It was a consequence, referred to as a byproduct of the reorganisation of civil research. At any rate—I rely upon the representations made by the staff—the project team, presumably set up under Rayner, took no evidence from the headquarters of the United Kingdom AEA. I understand that the Authority's management only informed the staff informally before the project team reported. It would have been a little more candid if, in presenting his report, the Minister had felt able to say that it has long been the desire of the Minister of Defence to get hold of Aldermaston. This view has not been widely or wholly shared within Whitehall.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of collective responsibility. Collective responsibility among. Ministers, a well-established principle, should not be used to cover up from the public the debates that occur within Whitehall and even between Ministers on the proper disposition of resources of one kind or another. It is true that the Ministry of Defence wanted Aldermaston. It is true that in promoting this Bill the Government have achieved for the Ministry of Defence what it wanted. The question which the House has to decide, although I have said that we will not express this in a vote, is whether the Minister has given enough reasons to justify that transfer and whether there are other factors that ought to be taken into account. The Minister spoiled his case by not arguing, as he might well have done, about the merits and demerits of alternative dispositions of AWRE, the various ways of handling both the defence and research needs of Whitehall.
I turn now from the representations made to me by the non-industrial staff to some points of substance made by the AWRE industrials themselves. The industrials at AWRE represent about 40

per cent. of the manpower involved in the transfer and their worries arise from the differences in conditions between the current employer, the AWRE, and the Civil Service. As the Minister knows very well, because I made representations directly about this myself, there was a period of difficulty in the summer into which I need not go in any detail, arising from pay arguments which bore upon the transitional difficulties arising from a shift from one to the other. The Bill, if passed, will end the contracts of employment which AWRE employers have with the United Kingdom AEA. It is of great importance, therefore. to those industrials—who, as I say, represent 40 per cent. of the staff—that adequate terms are negotiated to fulfil the Government's general assurance that terms as a whole for those being transferred will be no less favourable than those in AEA employment.
I must say to the Minister that I am somewhat surprised, bearing in mind that the first statement of intent of this kind, which brought forth my first comments which he quoted, goes back nearly two years, there has been so little progress in settling these arrangements with the staff involved.
The differences in conditions concern, of course, the retirement age, to which references has already been made. The non-industrial staff are being allowed to keep the retiring age of 65. The question is what compensation, if they are required to retire earlier, would be made available to the industrials. What are the redundancy compensation provisions, since Civil Service terms are linked to a retiring age of 60? What terms will apply to AWRE male employees, who have a contractual right to serve until 65? What about craftsmen and craft apprentices, who represent a large part of the industrial labour force at AWRE, because AEA has a common craft rate, worth £29·95 a week at AWRE, and Civil Service research and development establishments have a basic rate of £28·60 and an R & D rate of £31·60, with the great majority on the latter. What the craftsmen at AWRE are worried about is that some of their jobs will be assessed at the basic rate in the Civil Service, and they feel that in the transfer this point should be made clear for every individual involved.
Next we come to the non-craft wage rates, where there is a well-understood job


evaluation system which was carried through by negotiation in the interests of productivity, whereas the Civil Service does not have job evaluation but divides posts up into a number of bands, I think 20 in all. The problem of the non-craft rates is not yet solved. Finally, the AEA scheme being contributory and the Civil Service scheme not being contributory is a gain for most, but a large minority do not contribute anyway and this is either because they were not eligible to join the AEA scheme or because they were civil servants when it was set up. I have drawn attention in some detail to the points raised by the industrials because the Minister, in replying, may want to discuss them.
I turn to the wider question, on which the Minister was perhaps a little premature since he had not had the opportunity of hearing my argument developed. This is the third debate that has occurred on one or other aspect of science and technology within the past six weeks. The first was on the Concorde Aircraft Bill on 11th December when the House was urging that more information should be made available by the Government and the Government declined to provide the information we wanted. The second debate was on the day the House came back, when we talked about research development establishments generally, Rothschild and the reports of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, when similarly there was a demand for further information and a general reluctance by the Government to give it. Now we come to the most difficult area of all, which is the area of debate touching on the most secret technology to be found anywhere in this country, or indeed anywhere in the world. It is not possible for the House to ask for information about atomic weapons or the production of components for atomic weapons, or even to ask how many people are involved, what the true budget is, or anything of that kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who intervened, asked whether he could go and see non-nuclear work at Aldermaston. The Minister said that this work was so carefully protected and had to be so closely linked with the military work that it was not possible for Members of Parliament to go there even to see the non-nuclear

work that is being developed. Therefore the House has to address itself to the problem of how to control the production of nuclear weapons in the light of the fact that there are sound military reasons why information should not be made available. For the Minister just to dismiss this as a lot of nonsense is greatly to underestimate the nature of the worldwide debate that is going on about the control of science and technology.

Mr. Dalyell: Could I make it clear that in my original request to the Minister for Defence I specifically said that of course I understood that they would not want to show me the highly classified parts of the work?

Mr. Bean: Of course. Obviously the Minister could not possibly allow my hon. Friend to see the highly classified work.
The question is, given that that is the case, how does Parliament exercise any sort of supervision over this work? Of course the answer lies in trying to see that, although we can know nothing about it, the structure of Government is organised so that this debate takes place effectively inside the Government even though we ourselves cannot participate in the debate. That is the point and, if the hon. Gentleman, in presenting his Bill, had even recognised that there was a problem instead of brushing it aside so contemptuously, he would have got a better hearing from the House.
I want to put another point to the Minister. If we blank out public debate on a subject for security reasons—and I am not seeking any change in military security; how could I?—we also blank out to some extent ministerial debate, because a Minister discussing housing policy, education policy or roads policy is informed by reading in the Press at the time the debate occurs intelligent comment by those outside the Government. He reads what the education correspondent of The Guardian says, what the environment correspondent of The Times says. He has the benefit of what professors writing from the universities may say. But in the nuclear field the Minister has no such advantage, because the cloak of secrecy which there has to be is so great that the Minister is entirely dependent on official advice.
There is no alternative. I accept that. But we should not underestimate the danger that comes into governmental control of the establishment when the Minister is entirely at the mercy of official advice. He cannot challenge that advice. Indeed, he has no qualifications to challenge technical advice. He has nobody outside he can bring in, like all the economic advisers Ministers bring in to ask the Treasury whether it is the only way. He is entirely at the mercy of the people who give him advice.
How do we overcome this difficulty without a breach of security? That is the problem to which the House ought to give a little attention. The Department of Defence—and I am not blaming it because, after all, every Department has a departmental view—wanted to control Aldermaston. I am not suggesting that it was for any particular reason other than that of management efficiency. If one is responsible for the defence of the country, one wants to have within one's hands all the military research that goes with it. Even though there was never any complaint about the way in which the Atomic Energy Authority serviced the Ministry of Defence, there was a slight uneasiness in Ministry minds about getting these components on a contract basis from an agency responsible to another Ministry. That is the beginning and end of it. That is why the Ministry of Defence wanted it. It is neater and tidier. That is what Sir Derek Rayner thought up in his report.
Were it anything but nuclear weapons, I would be 100 per cent. in favour, because that is how Government works effectively. But there is a difference between having one Minister with access to all the briefing on a key subject such as nuclear weapons and having two Ministers with such access. I accept that there is a collective responsibility and that the Cabinet, or such committees of the Cabinet as are thought necessary, will discuss all these sensitive questions. I accept that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office would obviously involve themselves deeply in matters of this magnitude. I accept that the Treasury has an interest in the question. I accept that the Foreign Secretary has an interest in the relationship between defence and foreign policy. All of this we must understand and accept.
But having said that, if that is the only stream of advice which comes on nuclear weapons as a technical briefing, reaching the Secretary of State for Defence and, through him, the Cabinet, it is a reduction of the degree of debate within the ambit of national security which is provided by having a Minister for Trade and a Minister of Technology also briefied on these matters.

Mr. Gilmour: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that his position of being nominally responsible for Aldermaston gave him a unique standing to understand the advice on nuclear matters, apart from the Secretary of State for Defence? It seems from his argument that his responsibility was purely nominal so that he did not have this position in debate.

Mr. Benn: If we can get debate on this issue, it is worth having. Of course, as Minister of Technology, responsible for the Atomic Energy Authority, it would not have been for me to move into the area of responsibility for nuclear weapons. But given that, and having no link with the AEA, it meant that for scientists there was no alternative Minister to whom representations could be made. We know enough about the agonies of conscience of those working on nuclear weapons. I am not saying that that point ever arose, but there is always a potential conflict between the scientist working in an area where, for his user Department, he is simply an agent of policy, and the scientist who wishes to see a broader development taking place.
Let us take an example not entirely theoretical. How far should non-nuclear work be built up at Aldermaston? I deliberately encouraged it. We had the forensic laboratory and the work done on artificial limbs for thalidomide children, for example, using the little servo-components which had been developed. There is a very great difference between having a Minister with sponsorship responsibility for the AEA, including Aldermaston, trying to develop nonmilitary work, and using it simply as a military establishment doing a little work on the civilian side. The difference is in the emphasis.
The point is substantial. If there cannot be a public debate on nuclear weapons, then there is a duty to see that


there is an internal debate on nuclear weapons within the Government. It would be wrong to suppose that the control of the military industrial complex, to which President Eisenhower referred in his farewell address, is not a real problem for all Governments in all countries. Anyone who has followed the court case over the Pentagon papers in Washington now knows, for example, that the Pentagon deceived the President in some aspects of military policy.
I am not accusing or criticising anybody. All I am saying is that, if we are to make a case, on behalf of the people we represent, on the control of science or technology—whether it be the different aspects of medical research, civil aircraft like the Concorde, or industrial research and how it should relate with industry—there must be a debate going on somewhere, and it must be a genuine debate.
There is a difference between a Cabinet briefed on these matters and a Cabinet in which only one Minister, plus the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, has been briefed. This is the point I made when I used the term "constitutional" in my argument. I have now had the opportunity to develop it a little more fully. I believe that it is a point of substance which cannot be brushed aside by suggesting that there has been a change of view.
I have not changed my view on this matter. I have been consistent. I have always wanted to see the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment under civilian control. It was working wholly on contract for different Ministries. That was the system we preserved and maintained until, with the change of Government, the Defence Ministry got its way through the agency of the Rayner Report in line with the present Government's policy of linking research to user Departments.
The question was left open in our Green Paper. We said that we were looking simply at the civil research facilities of the Government. We believed that it would be better if there were a civilian system. Without prejudging the decision we knew we would later have to take, we said that it should be the Ministry of Defence or the Ministry of Technology. But the hon. Gentleman would be wrong

in supposing that the decision he has announced and embodied in the Bill was taken by the Labour Government. It was not—for many reasons, including those I have given, because I am reflecting now the view that I reflected then.
These are genuine problems, and if we are anxious to educate people to understand their democratic responsibilities in a general sense, we must not burke the issue of democratic responsibility even where we are all handicapped by the cloak of security. If, therefore, we cannot have a national debate—which we cannot—let us see that we have a genuine debate in Government.
It may be that the Government think this problem to be unimportant and are going to do nothing about it. I cannot expect the Minister in reply to go much beyond what was said in opening, but Ministers should think seriously about this matter because it is clear in any society in the world that these weapons of appalling destructive power are not as completely under human control as we would like, and I have no apology to make for bringing the situation to the attention of the Government and the House.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. David Walder: I think that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) would agree that he has gone a little wider than the Bill. But his arguments have mystified me a little as he has in a sense blown alternately hot and cold. I have not had his advantage of having tiptoed along the corridors of power. His first suggestion, that the Ministry of Defence wanted Aldermaston, sounded very sinister, although he modified it later by saying that this was an administrative convenience.
I did not follow the right hon. Gentleman's point about the security element. The security element which attaches to the use of atomic energy stems, as I see it, from one side of the matter which is concerned ultimately with the manufacture of weapons. On the other side we have the peaceful uses of atomic energy.
At Aldermaston, we have an establishment which has primarily been a defence one but has also been concerned with the peaceful uses of atomic energy. If the military side is kept, as it were,


outside the Ministry of Defence, although in a sense only notionally, I do not see that this alters the situation whereby inevitably we are to have, and rightly so, a security blackout over all those matters which lead towards the production of nuclear weapons. I do not quite see how that is possible.
The right hon. Gentleman may have exaggerated a little in suggesting that there could be an inter-ministerial debate between a Minister of Defence and a Minister of Technology—or whatever his title might be—on this matter, because primarily they are concerned with different things and the fact that they are all at one stage under one roof does not lead to the kind of debate he has in mind.
While he was talking I confess I thought that it might be instructive to ask the man in the street or the man on an Aldermaston March who controlled Aldermaston. I wonder whether the answer would have been "The Atomic Energy Authority" or "The Minister of Defence". I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a great vox populi man himself and I do not think he would dismiss this as an argument.
Reading through the Bill, I would have thought the difficulties were all in the present system rather than in the change that is envisaged. In this one has inevitably sometimes to surmise and guess because one has no direct knowledge, but I would have thought there were certain administrative difficulties at Aldermaston when there is a division between those who are ultimately concerned with the weaponry side and those who are concerned with the peaceful uses of atomic energy.
As the right hon. Gentleman has already said, this is a process of rationalisation which if perhaps not recommended was envisaged in the Green Paper, if not in particularly strong words. "It may be judged appropriate …", I believe, was the beginning of the sentence and I would consider this change to be an appropriate one. I do not think we shall get very far if we look round for international parallels. That of the United States is very different because there is a different constitutional set-up and the position of the President is different. Ultimately, he is commander-in-chief of the forces, which

of course makes it very difficult to draw parallels between our system and theirs.
So far as I am concerned, and as long as the situation of the present employees is considered—and of course those who become civil servants will not suffer; in fact, as I understand it, they might gain some slight advantage—I am perfectly happy to support the Bill. Rationalisation has been the popular and indeed the sensible cry so far as defence matters are concerned for a long time, and I believe that this is one step in the right direction.

4.32 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: I believe the House is wise to tackle this problem in the spirit in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) addressed himself to the issue because I believe we are dealing here with an extremely complicated and serious issue. The actual question of the transfer that is envisaged in this Bill is, I believe, the "icing" on the issue. We have here an opportunity to look at the whole question of how we develop, within Government and outside Government, sensible, rational discussion about what is probably one of the most important problems facing the world at the moment. I believe that the question of nuclear proliferation is the most serious problem facing the world through the 1970s and 1980s. I will come back to this later because I believe that the Bill gives us in this House of Commons an opportunity to question whether the existing set-up is the right one.
The Minister, in kindly mentioning my book and quoting from it, I feel did less than justice to the fact that the whole book is an appeal for more open discussion about these matters, and a basic criticism of the way in which this House over the years has allowed itself to be bludgeoned by the security classification that exists on military matters, and has refused to take unto itself the powers it should take, and also whether, if it cannot itself exercise those powers—and we recognise the need for such security—there is some other organisation of government in which we can vest those responsibilities.

Mr. Gilmour: I merely quoted from the hon. Gentleman's extremely interesting book and did not seek to imply anything else.

Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman's point that he quoted is perfectly fair. I do not personally believe that the establishment of the ministerial responsibility that we had when we were in office, which was a continuation of that of the previous Conservative Government, was sufficient to encourage the kind of discussion I want. I believe that the most serious question we have to raise on the whole issue is how much longer we can go on with a situation where we allow the "need to know" to be the sole determiner of how many people are informed about these things. The real fact of life is that the "need to know" classification is drawn by the military so tightly that very few Ministers and even very few Cabinet Ministers know anything about this area of decision making. Let us not delude ourselves, many decisions are not made by the full Cabinet, as we all know. Not only is it very difficult for all Ministers to get hold of information, but the number of civil servants and military people involved in these decisions are very small.
The question Parliament must ask is this: is the circle too small and too rarified? Is the atmosphere under which decisions are made something about which we can be happy? That is particularly important at the moment because there is no doubt that in the next decade the British Government will face important decisions on nuclear weapons, and in part those decisions will rest on the quality of the advice that comes from the present research establishment at Aldermaston. When the Prime Minister, who will ultimately take most interest in the decision, as is right, comes to the House and claims to have made the decision on the basis of national security in the interest of the nation, the House will want to know how well based that decision is likely to have been. That is the kind of issue I would like us to discuss.
My personal belief is that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder) was too dismissive about United States experience. It is true that the separation of the executive from the legislature there and the fusion of the executive and legislature in this House pose very different problems. But we ought to face the fact that the United States have an Atomic Energy Commis-

sion outside government, predominantly civilian appointed, answerable to the President, who produce an annual report which is considered in very considerable depth by the Joint Atomic Energy Commission of the Senate and the House. There is nothing like this in this Parliament of ours.
It is well recognised in Washington that the Joint Atomic Energy Committee of the House and Senate is one of the most powerful. of all committees. Even Presidents have found they have been unable to get policy changes because they have come up against the resistance of this committee. It is a really strong democratic safeguard. No such safeguard exists in this House. It is right and proper that we should question this. One of my criticisms, which I ventured to put forward in my book, was that at the time when discussion was taking place on what I believe was a most significant part of the whole nuclear weapons debate, namely, the question whether to continue to test multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles in the United States, in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967, there was absolutely no debate whatever in this country, despite the fact that in the free world Britain was the only country which had scientists capable of taking part in that kind of debate and at least questioning and challenging some of the evidence put forward by Pentagon scientists before Congressional committees.
There was no similar debate here. In the United States they questioned whether it was possible to have a MIRV moratorium. I personally believe that had there been such a moratorium in 1967 or 1968, or even in 1969, the escalation in the arms race that we have seen and will see for the next 10 years would have been prevented. Do not let anybody be deluded by SALT 1. We know that in the first part of the SALT negotiations there has been a small and important quantitative reduction but we are seeing a major qualitative surge in nuclear armaments that would have been almost inconceivable 15 years ago. Within our system there was no public debate. We also had little or no private influence on what was going on inside the United States.
One of the central arguments of those of us who have reluctantly put up with


the fact that there is a case for Britain to have nuclear weapons has always been that we have a voice within the alliance, not a super-power voice but an influence, and one of my objections is that we have never properly used it. Just as the House is afraid to claim the right to discuss these issues, so is the Ministry of Defence. Our admirals are petrified of questioning the American Pentagon and the American Navy. They seem to feel that, if they do, all the Polaris agreements will be cancelled overnight. They have a total misconception of the American attitude. The Americans do not mind criticism. They are open people, perfectly prepared to have arguments and discussions. We have been far too timid in our relationship in that alliance between two nations, two navies and two groups of scientists on the whole question of atomic energy.
Of course, there have been problems with nuclear weapons. There have been the McMahon Acts and differences between the two countries but, broadly speaking, there has been a close relationship. The advantage of a close relationship is that it provides an opportunity for us to use our influence, even at times arguing against our strongest ally.
Is the Prime Minister satisfied that it is sufficient just to rely on the advice of civil servants and Ministers? It is interesting to note that on this question successive Governments have felt dissatisfied with the existing system and have always appointed commissions of outside scientist to look into it. Sir Solly Zuckerman—now Lord Zuckerman—Lord Rothschild and many of the most eminent scientists have looked into these matters and advised governments. They have been asked to do so because Governments have not been happy that they are getting exactly the right advice.
There is something to be said for the appointment of an atomic energy commission. We are now facing the problem that the international safeguards on the amount of uranium existing in the world are woefully insufficient. It is estimated that 300.000 to 450.000 kilogrammes of plutonium will be accumulated in civil nuclear power stations around the world by 1980. This amount will reach into millions of kilogrammes of plutonium before the year 2,000. Yet

less than 10 kilogrammes could destroy a medium-sized city, and a small fraction of the plutonium output of even a modest nuclear power programme could produce a threat to international security.
I am extremely worried about the gas centifruge programme and the whole question of the conditions under which the Dutch, Germans and ourselves who went into that programme for the peaceful use of enriched plutonium will sell that technology. It has been admitted that we shall sell it to countries which have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I am not at all sure that we should sell it to any country, whether or not it has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
These are matters which are intimately related to the subject under discussion. The only scientists who are capable of constantly drawing the attention of the Government to the dangers of the proliferation of plutonium and enriched uranium resulting from civil nuclear engineering are the people who understand the complexities and changing technologies of nuclear weapon manufacture.
Over the years we have been able to take comfort from the fact that nuclear weapons cost such a vast amount of money to produce that they could be produced only by the super-powers. The United States took five years and 2 billion dollars to develop the A-bomb. The United States Government and the private nuclear power industry in the next 20 years spent 3 billion dollars developing nuclear power energy. But this has all changed. It is now estimated that the manufacture of fission bombs is nowhere near as difficult or expensive as was once thought. Ten fusion warheads a year could be made at an estimated £3.5 million capital cost and would cost £400,000 a year to run. Of course, delivery systems can be very expensive, but the estimated cost of producing one 20-kiloton plutonium warhead per year for 10 years is about £2 million a year. These are big sums of money, but not the astronomical sums they once were. There is a real danger that the three or four countries who have a nuclear power programme might feel justified in going into a relatively low-cost nuclear warhead programme, and they certainly could if they so wished.
That danger does not directly relate to the provisions of the Bill, but what does relate to them is the question, are we confident that the sort of advice that was previously available to the Ministry of Technology will still be freely available? I am not at all certain how government in this area should be organised. I was profoundly disappointed with the innovation, which I strongly welcomed at the time, of a Minister of Disarmament. I have come to the conclusion that a Minister of Disarmament separated from the Minister of Defence is so impotent as to be useless. I think that we have to vest our Secretary of State for Defence with responsibility for disarmament and make certain that he sees both sides. It is quite possible to do this. Robert McNamara, the American Secretary of State for Defence, took immense interest in the question of proliferation, and I think that history will judge his period in office as most significant for the constant concern which he showed for proliferation and arms control. How to do it is a difficult problem.
The spirit in which I approach the Committee stage of the Bill is not just to allow it to go through on the nod though I am not opposed to it. I think that the rational decision to put the Weapons Group under the Ministry of Defence is probably right, but that is not to say that I think even this situation is anywhere near satisfactory. We should see what additional arrangements can be made to satisfy the legitimate interests of this House.
For instance, we do not know how much money is spent at Aldermaston. The only way in which hon. Members and the public can find out what has been spent at Aldermaston is by looking at Class XII, Vote 7 of the Defence Budget. There, under the different general headings, is accumulated what is spent at Aldermaston. Some people say that ignorance is a good idea. It is a definite policy within the Ministry of Defence to present the programme so that it is quite impossible to know what is happening at Aldermaston and whether any major changes have been made. Is that satisfactory?
The hon. Member for Clitheroe made great play of collective decision-making and Cabinet decision-making, but our history shows that the key decisions on

this issue have been made by the Prime Minister. The Attlee decision was made without full discussion in the Cabinet and many other decisions have been made by a very few Ministers. On occasions, that is justified. It is hard to know exactly what the House has the right to know. All I can say to hon. Gentlemen who may think that we have no right to any further information is that they should look at the questioning that goes on at the Joint Atomic Energy Committees in America. For instance, questions are asked about underground testing, which is a key issue at the moment.
The House castigates the French for atmospheric testing. I suspect that throughout this year great play will be made of this. Let us not be under any illusion: this is an extremely difficult matter. It was this House of Commons and the Americans and the Russians who decided, after they had finished atmospheric testing, to have a test ban treaty and to go underground because we had underground test facilities. The French do not have those facilities. I am not defending the French nuclear programme, but the question we should be asking ourselves is whether some of our underground test knowledge or facilities should he put at the disposal of the French rather than that the French should continue polluting through atmospheric testing. Many people say that they should not do it at all, but they will go on doing it and the question is whether we should allow such pollution to continue. These are questions which need to be discussed in the House a great deal more rationally than they have been in the past and on the basis of a great deal more information.
Against the background of increasing concern among practical scientists who know a great deal about the subject, we must consider the whole question of safeguards for plutonium, the way in which it is flown or shipped around between countries and also the safeguards on the handling of uranium. The ease with which somebody in a guerilla organisation could obtain the basic ingredients of a primitive nuclear bomb is causing genuine concern to those who know about these matters.
Our international safeguards are appalling and the British Government have a responsibility to lead public


opinion on the question of arms control and safeguards. We now have a problem within Europe in terms of the safeguards that will be needed, and especially about what will happen to Euratom. Will the Government ensure that within the countries of the Nine we shall have much tougher and more stringent safeguards than exist at present?
These are central problems and as we go towards gas centrifuge techniques we must ask what safeguards there will be. Should we sell the process to the rest of the world and should we make money out of it? Alternatively, should we decide not to spread it throughout the world? These are open questions.
In what forum will these important decisions be discussed? At present there is no way even of discussing these matters, and it is only because we have this Bill before us today that we are able to mention these matters now.
I shall probe these matters in Committee in that spirit. I appreciate that the Government have a legitimate interest in safeguarding security, but they may have to consider making changes in the machinery of Government to satisfy the legitimate demands of the House of Commons. I hope that in Committee the Minister will look at this matter with a view possibly to making some major changes in the way in which we now conduct our affairs. If the Minister consults some of the eminent scientists concerned in this subject such as Lord Penney, the present Chairman of the AEA, Lord Zuckerman and Lord Rothschild, he will realise that there is considerable concern about the present way in which these matters are discussed and the way decisions are made within Government.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: All of us who are interested in these matters owe a considerable intellectual debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) for his book on defence. Incidentally, I understand that his book has been published in Japanese. Perhaps it is typical that other countries are more interested in my hon. Friend's deep view about defence than we are in this country.
This is a very strange debate. It is strange that I am able to make my remarks at such an early hour in the day when we reflect that only 15 years ago there were major figures in this country for whom these issues were at the top of their minds. Within 10 years of Hugh Gaitskell's passing, one may well reflect that both he and Aneurin Bevan gave a great deal of their political lives to this kind of issue. But what do we see today? We see a few people on the Government Front Bench, with no Cabinet Minister present—and I make no particular criticism, because the Opposition benches are equally sparsely populated. It is a reflection on us that in the United States and Japan and in certain other countries they go into these issues far more deeply than we do. This is neither the time nor the occasion to say things about contemporary Britain, but one can only imagine what Hugh Gaitskell and Aneurin Bevan might have thought about this situation had they been here today.
I feel that in the cold print of HANSARD my speech will look strident and a little aggressive. It will be the speech of a Member who has nothing like enough information on which to form any rational convincing judgment about the purpose of the Bill but nevertheless a Member who is uncomfortable. Therefore, I shall use my time not stridently but quietly, gently and seriously in seeking to probe the Government's mind on this subject.
The Minister made exactly the speech I had expected. I do not mean to be offensive to him, but I thought he dealt with the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) a little too easily. I do not share the Minister's equanimity. Perhaps I can be forgiven for going back 18 years in dealing with the interesting question of what happens to leaders at the very pinnacle of power. How much collective decision-making was there when it came to the crunch in 1956 at the time of Suez? If the literature of that time is to be believed, what we had was a neurotic and ill Prime Minister, the then Sir Anthony Eden, who took his decisions with, at the most, three or four other people. Therefore, this question of collective decision-making is not as simple or straightforward as it is said


to be, because leaders become hypertensive.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South East, in a most reflective and thoughtful speech, mentioned the situation in the United States. I do not want to be autobiographical, but I recall an interview lasting an hour and a half with Walter Rostow during the Lyndon Johnson Administration which took place in the macabre White House basement operations room. Here was a man who had lectured to us some years before, who was an intellectual who had gone wrong, who was certain of his own sense of power. At the summit people take leave of reason if they are infatuated with their own power. The British situation may not be the same. There are differences between London and federal Washington since the pinnacle of power is not with us. In matters of ultimate control people who are lonely and cut off from many of the human relationships of politics make strange decisions.
I address myself to the British position. The Minister spoke of Cabinet responsibility. I should be interested to hear what happens in the present Government. My suspicion is that what happens is not quite so different from what happens in a Labour Government. I understand—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East, will correct me if I am wrong—that no member of the Cabinet outside the Overseas Policy and Defence Committee had anything to do with these decisions. Furthermore, I understand that certain Ministers at certain times—I refer to the then Lord President of the Council—were rightly or wrongly, for reasons which may be understandable in certain circumstances, not told about certain highly sensitive aspects of defence policy.

Mr. Gilmour: Let us put the record straight. I referred to collective responsibility, not Cabinet responsibility.

Mr. Dalyell: I am searching for truth—whose collective responsibility, if it is not Cabinet responsibility?

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman knows that these matters are not normally discussed. The original Attlee decision was made, I understand, in the Defence Committee of the Cabinet. That information has been published. There-

fore, responsibility can be collective without necessarily always being a Cabinet decision.

Mr. Dalyell: It was made without Herbert Morrison's cognisance. He was the second or third most important man in the Government, and in a sense this makes my point for me. I am not trying to score easy debating points, but it is obvious that the Attlee decision was made almost certainly without the knowledge of Herbert Morrison who at that time occupied a key position in the Government. I may be told that these matters operate differently in Conservative Governments. I do not think they operated quite so differently in 1956, if Lord Butler is to be believed.
When we talk about these arrangements not being normally discussed, I am prepared to discuss them. It cannot be challenged that these arrangements are made by the Prime Minister, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and probably the Secretary of State for Defence. If I am not wrong about these normal arrangements, they mean three or four men. At present we have a Prime Minister who is a remote man even to his colleagues, a Secretary of State for Defence who holds no elected office, and the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. This is not satisfactory. For that reason, I thought that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East, argued about the reduction in the number of people who were consulted on such crucial issues, he was on the right lines.
I hope that the argument is theoretical. Without pressing it too far, I say that although I was not convinced about my right hon. Friend's argument when he first put it to us, at any rate he demonstrated today that an argument of this kind cannot be brushed off or put aside. It is not easily dismissed.
I listened carefully to the Minister, and I take his point that whole nuclear weapons are not manufactured at Aldermaston. It is the arugment about special pants being manufactured there and about Aldermaston being responsible for a few parts. Yes. But in toto. Surely the same argument applies to other sections of British research and British industry which are responsible for the manufacture of the total weapon. I thought that this again was a somewhat incomplete argument trying to dismiss what my right


hon. Friend said. For that reason, on this issue, like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, I, too, will be probing at some length before 1st April during the Committee stage.
My other source of discomfiture is not relating to this kind of theoretical, if sinister, consideration. My fear is that this once high-quality establishment has become a bloated white elephant or a scientific albatross hanging round the necks of the taxpayer and the Treasury. I choose my words carefully. I do not normally talk about establishments being "bloated white elephants". If I had been allowed to see something of it, it may be that I would have used a different phrase. But for the moment "a bloated white elephant" is the phrase that I choose.
For good reason or bad, it is far from clear what the bulk of the scientists there actually do now. They exist ostensibly to carry out research in weapons systems. Does that simply mean helping to create bigger and better nuclear weapons? If so, are we dissatisfied with the weapons that we have for use in some foreseen defence scenario?
I find it difficult to escape the conclusion that Aldermaston exists at its present size because Aldermaston exists at its present size. It is the old problem of the mechanism of shrinkage for any establishment whose objects and usefulness, which may have been great 10 or 15 years ago, are now no longer what they were. My attitude is not one of sarcasm. The mechanism of shrinkage of scientific establishments which have outlived their usefulness and descended down the slope to scientific mediocrity is difficult for any Government.
Scientists and civilian workers at Aldermaston, like the rest of us, have wives, children and homes. If a man has been at Aldermaston for 10 years, if his wife has her friends in the neighbourhood and if his children at school are approaching their "O" or "A" levels when interruption is undesirable, there is a tremendous temptation to humane Government employers—and in most ways the Ministry of Defence is a very good employer—to say, "We must find other work for these scientists and other employees to whom we have con-

tractual and moral responsibilities." It is wholly to the credit of the civil servants in the Ministry of Defence that they should take this attitude.
However, in response to an article which appeared under my name in New Scientist of 18th January, I had a letter which I ascertained that I could quote without attribution, saying:
The reason why you MPs are not being allowed by the Ministry of Defence to visit Aldermaston before discussion of the Bill in the Commons is nothing to do with any secrets which you may discover, or security. That is not the real reason at all since in a day's visit you could not conceivably learn anything of value to a potential enemy, least of all if you are not an up-to-date qualified nuclear physicist.
Certainly I am not that. Anyway, I made it clear in my original letter to the Secretary of State for Defence that I did not expect to be shown highly classified work. My correspondent went on:
You probably realise that the real reason why they do not want you or any other MP snuffing around Aldermaston is that they are afraid you may instinctively tumble to the truth, that the place has become a racket, a scandal of public expenditure where unions and management connive with baffled senior servants at the Ministry of Defence to sustain jobs for which the need disappeared 10 years ago.
Personally, I would not use the word "racket". I am sensitive to the human situation of many families involved in a rundown at an enormous establishment such as Aldermaston at a time when equivalent scientific jobs are impossible to find.
If the purpose of this Bill is the humane and gentle slimming of Aldermaston, and the Government claim that this is more easily achieved by bringing Aldermaston into the Ministry of Defence, I say that perhaps they are right to do so. But nothing in the Minister's speech or in any intervention made from the Treasury Bench has suggested that the humane slimming of Aldermaston is the reason for the change. If that is the reason for it, I hope that we shall have some comment later in the debate. If I am told that the purpose of the Bill is candidly that there should be a mechanism of shrinkage in a very difficult situation and that it is easier to shrink Aldermaston by taking it into the Ministry of Defence, that makes sense. Probably it is the best way to go about


it, and I understand the Government's difficulties in this respect.
I am not sore and I have no trace of pique about not being allowed to go to Aldermaston, chiefly because of my limitations in making any kind of judgement. But I should like to be told that a competent body spending more time than a one-day visit would be allowed to go to Aldermaston to make some kind of reflective judgment.
It is not for me to make too many suggestions for the composition of such a body, and I make it clear that I have not consulted any of those whom I am about to name and they would have to react for themselves. I hope that they will not be embarrassed.
I should like to see as the chairman of such an investigating committee either Sir Brian Flowers, or perhaps Professor Colin Adamson of the Regent Street Polytechnic, or a major industrialist. I should like to see the Chief Defence Scientist, Sir Hermann Bondi, a member of such a commission but not the chairman of it. I should like to see someone from one of the trade unions nominated. There are many young competent trade unionists who could give assistance to such a commission in passing judgement. The other two or three members ought to be specialist physicists, metallurgists, or people from some other discipline.
I am not suggesting that it is a long commission, but I think that some kind of report, revealing no secrets, ought to be made to this House and to the scientific community in general outlining what precisely Aldermaston is up to and what its future is. I maintain that serious consideration should be given to such a task force which should do its job within a specific time.
The truth is that I do not know, my Front Bench does not know and Ministers in this respect do not seem to have very much of a clue. I should be interested to know—I ask this as a purely interrogative question—whether any Minister has spent a day at Aldermaston in the last two years.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I spent a day there shortly before Christmas.

Mr. Dalyell: I am glad to hear that.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): I was there two weeks ago.

Mr. Dalyell: It is entirely to the Minister's credit. I am glad to hear it.
I should like this commission to look at certain specific questions which may not have engaged the Minister's day. First, I should like it to reflect on fusion research, and in particular whether the fusion watt done at Aldermaston might be better done at Culham. I will certainly listen to any Minister in Committee or at some other time who may say, "For years many of us, particularly on this side of the House, have thought about the making of scientific swords into ploughshares. We have constantly reiterated the need for defence research establishments to do civilian work." If it is said that this has been tried but not found satisfactory and that we must understand that there are limitations in this respect, I shall accept it. It may be more difficult than many of us expected six or seven years ago. Therefore, I should like to know why work on fusion that takes place at Aldermaston cannot be transferred to Culham and, indeed, whether Aldermaston personnel will be transferred there.
The second related question concerns work on laser fusion. Similarly, could not this be done at Culham or some other civilian establishment? It is difficult for me, and possibly for the Minister, to pass any judgment on this matter. However, I should like an outside judgment extra Aldermaston to give some kind of reflection.
Precisely what valuable civil work is being done at Aldermaston? For example, what work is being done for hospitals? Here, again, there is difficulty. People who have money available on the magnitude of Aldermaston may not be cognisant with the problems of hospital administrators who work on tight budgets. A good deal has been said, not least by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when Prime Minister, about the work that would be done at Aldermaston on medical research and bio-engineering. I should like to be told, either in Committee or even in the wind up, what is being done, whether it is on any significant scale, and whether, on reflection, the Government


think that it should be done at Aldermaston or would be better done at some medical research centre—I do not necessarily say Mill Hill—under the auspices of the MRC. It may be that experience has taught us that this kind of worthy work cannot be done at a military research establishment.
Should Aldermaston part with its non-secret research? I should like that question answered in some detail before we reach the Committee stage.
I could make a much longer speech, but I do not think it would be appreciated and it might be an abuse of time. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and doubtless my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) in saying that some of us would like to scrutinise this legislation in depth. The Government will get it through much more quickly if they are as candid and forthcoming as it is possible to be.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I thought that the debate was started in rather low key by the Minister who seemed to suggest that there was not much to this measure—indeed, that it was a matter to be played in low key because it was a logical move to make the Ministry of Defence the organisation responsible for taking control of the functions of the AEA. Other matters were also considerably played down.
We had interventions by several hon. Members who had constituency interests and were rightly concerned, but in the main the debate has been carried on by about half-a-dozen hon. Members. It is a sign of the problem that we face that so few are here today to speak on a most important subject. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. Davis Owen) and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the level of the debate to such an extent.
I want to begin by reiterating briefly some of the questions about the administrative changes which will take place presumably by 1st April. One question

which the Minister might answer is, why have the Government taken so long to bring about this change which was envisaged to have taken place by 1st April 1972? In the extra year which has been available—I understand that the Bill is expected to come into force on 1st April 1973—one would think that the administrative changes and the problems of consultation with the trade unions and civil service employees would have been sorted out and agreement reached.
I understand that about 5,700 staff are to be transferred to the Ministry of Defence and will go on the Defence budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian rightly said, many human problems are involved. The Minister touched briefly on some aspects which concern the non-industrial and industrial staff. As my hon. Friend implied, there will be a digging up of roots, friendships and homes in making some changes.
We need more information on the changes and differences between the Civil Service and AEA rulings about pension rights, superannuation, the preservation of career prospects, and other aspects of that kind.
The Rayner Report suggests that this is a logical move because all the establishments concerned with defence will now be under one head in the Ministry of Defence. How does the hiving off of the work going to the Ministry of Defence affect the AEA when the AEA has already lost work on nuclear installations which are now carried out under the Nuclear Installations Bill? This may suggest a certain fragmentation of functions in atomic energy into at least three spheres. The Bill is in keeping with the Rayner recommendations so far as the changes mean that the user Department becomes responsible.
In many ways this should simplify control and direction and rationalisation of resources of the various establishments. I hope, therefore, that the important aspects of staff and human relations will get consideration from the Minister. Undoubtedly he will be able to say more about that aspect in Committee. As I have mentioned, the pension schemes and other rights should be preserved and, if possible, improved.
I should also like the Minister to list the various aspects of atomic and nuclear energy production and research and development, and say who will control them in the future. What greater coordination will there be between the new overseers?
Another aspect which should concern the House is the safety and security precautions. Will the know-how and established procedures also be transferred? Some would say that there is an argument for transferring all defence and research development, and so on, to the Ministry of Defence. But there is also an argument on the other side for the keeping of all nuclear energy developments under one control. This was referred to in the debate in the other place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East posed a very important question when he asked about the opinion of the authorities concerned in this move. Undoubtedly there was a great deal of concern behind the scenes. The House is entitled to know the reactions of all the authorities whose future has been affected by the moves which are now being made.
I echo some of the questions of hon. Members on this aspect. A major upheaval of this sort has to be considered. When one considers the advances in science and technology and the way in which project teams and others are built up, one fears that there is some danger of these teams being split up, with the consequent loss of time and progress which would not have occurred without this interruption. Will the project teams be split up? What delays and disadvantages will accrue by the change of management in the establishments concerned?
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian raised the question about the effect upon the teams who have been working inextricably together and who in the future may be split up. Many of us would say that it is no good saying that this is quite an insignificant kind of move, because many of the staff will be affected in so many ways. We have a right to know what that effect will be and what is being done to mitigate it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East said that the structure of Government should be reorganised in

order to allow Parliament to have confidence in knowing what is going on. At that point the debate reached the level that it should have reached much earlier, because this is the essence of it. My right hon. Friend reminded us of the fact that this was the third debate on science and technology in a few weeks. I would add that this is the third time that the House has had the brush off in this way. We remember the debate on the Concorde Aircraft Bill, in which the Opposition moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee because we felt that although the Bill merited general support for what it sought to do, the House was entitled to know for what purpose the money was wanted, how it would be spent and, most important, the ways in which the spending and future policy would be monitored. We had no satisfaction on that. Those of us who have sat through the four meetings of the Standing Committee on the Concorde Aircraft Bill have been pressing time and again to be given the opportunity of being let into the background of the Concorde project so that we may have greater confidence in the running of it. That was the first brush off we had.
On Monday 22nd January we had the Select Committee report concerned, Dainton and Rothschild on research and development policy. Here again, there was a great divide and the House showed a real anxiety about the need for Parliament to have the information so that we could monitor what was happening.
In many ways, the Bill which started off so easily today simply as a transfer of functions and responsibilities has been raised to a much higher level, where the echoes of the last two debates return. The House and the country are extremely concerned about how we shall get to know what is happening, what ministerial control exists and to what extent Parliament is entitled to have the information which is absolutely necessary if we are to be sure that the uses of nuclear energy for civil and for defence purposes are as they should be. One can ask how Parliament is to know and what changes are to be brought about by the Government in order to see that Parliament gets the information it ought to have.
The Government recently published a White Paper called "Public Money in the Private Sector." That publication is very


important in relation to Concorde and to this measure because it gets down to the substantial questions which have to be asked and, indeed, answered—"answered" is the relevant word here—as to how public accountability can be assured.
We also come now to a change from public money in the private sector to public money in the public sector. To some extent this is covered by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. But here again we come to the next question—how we shall get to know when commercial secrecy is being covered by defence and military safeguards which the Government put forward from time to time as being essential and a reason for the House not getting the information it wants.
In church last Sunday we prayed—I think that it was in the Prayer for the Church Militant or a Communion Service—for truth, unity and concord. Knowing last week that decisions would be taken in a few days' time, my mind was on the Concorde especially. Today we have had a considerable unity in the Chamber, but the real question is about truth and how one gets to know the truth in this or any other situation.
The dilemma has been spotlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, who spoke about the transfer of the hereditaments and other functions being the icing on the Bill. He asked the very important question how we develop rational discussion on nuclear power and responsibility. This dilemma has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. In these matters, where there is no information there can be very little public debate. Where there is very little public debate, Ministers have no chance of being influenced by the concern which lies underneath the surface and is not evident on occasions when it should be.
This is a debate about the functions of the Minister and Parliament, and how the British nation can be let into these matters which are of very great concern to all of us.
I remember a defence tour of the United States which I undertook a few months ago. I had the chance of visiting a nuclear submarine, the "Simon Bolivar". Like many others, I was

greatly impressed, in a two-hour visit, with all the nuclear and other trapping there and the tremendous responsibility which those who run the United States Navy carry from time to time. When one goes to Washington to see the hot line to the Soviet Government and the safeguards necessary to ensure that nuclear energy is used in the most responsible way, when one sees the enormous responsibility resting on the shoulders of the President of the United States and Mr. Melvin Laird, the Secretary for Defence—whom I met—and when one discusses the kind of loneliness they experience, one can see in a kind of perspective the responsibility which rests upon our Ministers.
This responsibility rests on our Ministers, who have a loneliness that they cannot share. The House is also lonely in this respect because it does not get the information and background. The House has no knowledge of the real problems, possibilities and policies necessary to shoulder these very heavy responsibilities. As science and technology gets more and more advanced and sophisticated so it becomes more remote—far too remote for most of us. We enter worlds which are far above the heads of the ordinary people we represent.
In the days that remain between now and the Committee stage the Government have a responsibility, therefore, to make sure that some of the questions raised today, expressing concern and misgiving, receive satisfactory answers. This is a void which must be filled. When I mentioned it last week in the debate on the Dainton and Rothschild report about the sophistication of research and development—and that applies to nuclear energy and to the potentiality of it—I could see that we were developing into a field which was barred to the ordinary hon. Member and to the people in this country. It applies also in the development of science and technology with the exciting prospects of post-Apollo and many other projects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton pinpointed the dilemma which exists when he said that there is secrecy that cannot be justified by the need for military and commercial secrecy. He also raised the question of the signatures to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the wisdom of selling know-how to others.


That brings us to another dilemma, that of advanced countries in science and technology having information which might be shared. The time must come when we decide that certain information cannot be shared because it is so critical to the future wellbeing of so many citizens.
We live in a world of greatly advanced technology and problems of its understanding grow in magnitude in a world which is obsessed with trivia. In view of the coverage in the Press this morning given to questions of coffee pots, we can only hope that our debate this evening will merit the same kind of coverage tomorrow morning because it affects some basic issues facing the country. The Government have a responsibility to make certain that in the near future the questions raised in the debate are given answers if there is not to be growing misgiving among those who are deeply concerned.

5.33 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Antony Buck): I first came into contact with the work of the Atomic Energy Authority when I visited Dounreay in the early 1960's. That was under the auspices of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. One of those who was chiefly responsible for stimulating my interest in this sphere was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). He has devoted an enormous amount of time and energy to these matters, not least as Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. It is a disappointment to us all not to see him in his place here today, but I know that his many friends on both sides of the House will be glad to hear that when I spoke to him on the telephone about these matters today I found him to be in excellent spirits. It is our ardent hope that he will be back before long so as to contribute his wisdom and knowledge on these matters to our debates.
I should like to associate myself with what has been said about the good work that has been done by the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment and I should like to pay a tribute to the cooperation which those concerned have given to my Department in the detailed

discussions and negotiation which have been made necessary by the legislation which is proposed. I should like to pay a tribute to the Atomic Energy Authority for its co-operation which I am sure will continue. It was my pleasure to visit Aldermaston earlier this month. As we have heard my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have also paid visits in recent times to the establishment in order, so far as they were able, to familiarise themselves with something of the work of the establishment. However, the fact that I have paid a visit does not mean that at this stage I can automatically answer detailed questions about what happens there. In Committee I shall do everything I can, as will the Minister of State, and so far as security barriers allow, to provide answers to questions by hon. Members.
I felt some sympathy for the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I heard him make his heartfelt plea at business questions a short time ago that it had not been possible to visit the establishment. Immediately after that I had further discussions to see whether it would be possible to meet his wishes. I hope he will accept that, following precedent, it was not possible, largely because of the intermix which exists there. These are factors which he recognised in an article he wrote in the New Scientist on 18th January. I believe that he recognised the force of the arguments put forward in the letter to which he referred in courteous terms in the article.
When I visited Aldermaston I was struck by the immense complexity of the work there and by the dedication of those concerned. I remember feeling the same sentiments when I visited Dounreay. Of course I do not have the technical expertise which some hon. Members may enjoy. I do not accept for one moment that it is in any way fair to describe the organisation as a white elephant in the way in which the hon. Member for West Lothian described it. I take it that he was speaking for himself and not for his Front Bench. There has been a substantial cut in the number of staff employed over the years and a streamlining of the establishment. If there were any truth in the suggestion, I would have thought that to have been a strong argument in favour of the move we are


making now. Perhaps a new light should be cast upon it, but I am not suggesting that there is now to be a sudden purge there or anything of that character. That is not our intention and the work prospects of those employed there are utterly assured.

Mr. Dalyell: I was not suggesting that there might be a sudden purge. I consider the Ministry of Defence to be humane employers. My point about the white elephant is that sufficient facts should be forthcoming to convince me and, more important, many others, that Aldermaston is not a bloated white elephant. Responsibility for proving Aldermaston not to be a bloated white elephant rests with the Government.

Mr. Buck: I hope during the course of the Committee stage that we shall have an opportunity to convince the hon. Member that there is nothing bloated or white elephantish about Aldermaston. We shall certainly do our best. I do not have sufficient confidence in my powers to be able to do that here and now but I can assure him that I saw no element of flab when I was there. My technical knowledge is not sufficient to enable me to answer the hon. Member in the way that I should like. But when we get down to what is called in the current parlance "the nitty gritty". I hope that I shall be able to do so.

Mr. Dalyell: I cannot detect flab either and that is why I think that serious consideration should be given to a commission under Sir Brian Flowers which would be in a position to detect flab.

Mr. Buck: I think that we shall be able to convince the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) by a long way, at any rate, so long as he maintains his usual open mind and attitude on these matter in Committee, without the necessity for there being the need for a commission.
I was impressed by the dedication of those concerned. I did not see arguments to substantiate the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that the institution is one which he describes it as possibly being. I should like to correct any impression that there may be that the transfer of the Atomic Energy Authority to the Civil Service is, almost by definition, a change

for the worse. That has sometimes been suggested in some of the writings and perhaps by some of the interventions in this debate. I remind the House of the words of Peter of Blois, who is well known to everyone in the House as a medieval cleric of great distinction who, almost eight centuries ago, said:
I do not condemn the life of civil servants, who even if they cannot have leisure for prayer and contemplation, are nevertheless occupied in the public good and often perform works of salvation.
I suggest that those who will be transferred to the Civil Service will continue to work with the same dedication in future as they have done in the past.
The right hon. Member for Bristol. South-East (Mr. Benn) in what was, as one expects, a most interesting speech, raised the question whether it is right and logical that the research and development of nuclear weapons, as well as their production, should be placed under the Secretary of State for Defence. That was the basic issue. As hon. Members are aware, what is being done in the Ministry of Defence, is not solely under the control of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. It is directly superintended by a Cabinet Committee. I take note of the point raised by the Opposition of the importance of our getting this right. With respect, the suggestion that, because it is all to come within the Ministry of Defence, it will preclude "Whitehall debate", is not valid. Although I have been in Whitehall as an Under-Secretary of State for such a short while this suggestion seems to be a travesty of the true position. I cannot see that the position will be worsened. It will be no worse than it was in the right hon. Gentleman's day. Indeed, the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, so far as I understood it, was that things under the earlier regime did not work very well. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman never paid a visit to Aldermaston.
I am hopeful that the new system as envisaged by us under the Minister of State will provide ample opportunity for debate within Whitehall. Of course, the point which has been raised by the Opposition about the need to get information to Ministers and, as far as possible, to a wider audience, is a matter of substance. I look forward, as I know my hon. Friend


will, to hearing practical ideas put forward in committee relating to that matter.

Mr. Benn: Lest there should be any misunderstanding about the points that I made, it was no part of my argument that under the Government's proposals the whole nuclear business, the production, control and potential, was being transferred to the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and noble Friend. We know that a Cabinet Committee will continue. However, to clarify the point at issue, even in a Cabinet Committee, which is a committee whatever it is called and however many there are, the weight that Ministers carry depends upon the extent to which they have original briefing by people knowledgeable in the subject. The proposal amounts to a narrowing of the original briefing from two Ministers to one Minister. That is indisputable. Whether the Minister who used to be responsible for the Ministry of Technology or the Department of Trade and Industry took an interest in nuclear matters is not the point. The point is that there was an opportunity to preserve within the Cabinet Committee the potentiality of a real debate between two Ministers, each of whom had to be listened to because he had statutory responsibilities. I make that point because I do not want to be misunderstood.

Mr. Buck: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. My understanding of his speech—I should like to hear about this in greater detail—was that although there might have been two Ministers responsible in the earlier regime, in fact this debate could not take place. Indeed, that was not a very successful set-up. We can pursue that later. I take the point that there were two Ministers involved. There is likely to be a greater involvement than just that of my right hon. and noble Friend on a continuing basis. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows much more than I do about Cabinet Committees. However, I understand that it should not be a problem. The basic problem is to try to get as much debate about these matters as is consistent with security. That is a point which I look forward to discussing, in so far as it will be in order, in Committee.

Mr. Dalyell: I have two specific requests. First, can we before the Committee stage—I do not expect the Minister to reply to this now—have some general view of the future of laser research at Aldermaston and whether it could be transferred to Culham? I should like to hear a general statement on the relationship between Aldermaston and Culham. Secondly, it would be useful to have a clear statement about the Government's general philosophy about the extent to which civilian work can be done sensibly and legitimately in military establishments.

Mr. Buck: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's last point first. It is intended that the balance which there is at the moment between civilian and military work should continue. I should say "known" nuclear military work. I must be careful what I say. Some of it cannot possibly be described as civilian work. It is intended that the 20 per cent. should continue. However, it is wholly sensible that it should remain under the basis of a Ministry of Defence establishment. It seems wholly right that it should be there.

Mr. Benn: indicated assent.

Mr. Buck: I see that the right hon. Gentleman nods in agreement. There should be no change. I can give the right hon. Gentleman a complete assurance about that matter. I see nothing which is not sensible about this type of work—some of it civilian work—continuing under Ministry of Defence establishments. I see no difficulty about that.
I was told something about lasers when I visited Aldermaston. I will look into the hon. Gentleman's point about whether it is appropriate for that kind of work to continue at Aldermaston, or whether a case could be made for a transfer. Frankly, I have no view about that at the moment. I will try to be in communication with the hon. Gentleman before the Committee stage so that he shall have as much information as I am able to give him.
Generally, the purpose of the Bill as as indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder) and as is agreed by both sides of the House, is that of simplified management which will lead to progressive rationalisation of


Defence research and development facilities. The growth in the cost and sophistication of the work underlines the need for rationalisation of this sort. It is rationalisation which was acknowledged by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, in an earlier paper for which he was responsible and to which reference has been made. I need not quote from that again. We have covered it sufficiently. It remains on the Table for Members to read. I am glad that we have reached a similar conclusion to that originally arrived at by the right hon. Gentleman. I look forward to hearing in Committee whether he is still in favour of putting it under a Ministry of Technology and not the Defence Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe mentioned the different types of system in other countries. Labour Members have said that in some ways the United States system is superior. We have often envied, certainly as backbenchers, the powers of Senate committees to put Government Departments to the inquisition. There are great dangers in trying to take international parallels too far here. But perhaps we can learn something from the systems of other countries, and we look forward to hearing these matters developed further at a later stage, if hon. Members wish.
We feel that what Sir Derek Rayner suggested was right. The right hon. Gentleman's detailed point about the consultations before Rayner perhaps concerns history, but I shall seek to discover whether there was sufficient consultation. If there had been any feeling in the scientific community against what was recommended, we should have expected more of an outburst in the scientific Press at the time. Although a layman in these matters, I have looked back to see whether there was any such outburst, and there was none. I see the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) nodding agreement.
This leads me to suppose that we have a large element of scientific backing for what is suggested, although the hon. Member for West Lothian may choose to quote one particular letter which expresses doubt about that. If there had been any substantial body of scientific opinion hos-

tile to the Rayner recommendation, surely it would have manifested itself in the learned journals to which scientists are often contributing?

Mr. Dalyell: That is not a legitimate conclusion. The science writers, like most others, do not know enough about the matter to form a conclusion.

Mr. Buck: The scientists could read the Rayner Committee recommendations, which were that these aspects should come under the Defence Department. If there is any depth of feeling about the matter it is surprising that there was no such out-bust from scientists. I did not make a 100 per cent, search in the learned journals, but I was unable to find anything of the kind.

Mr. Benn: I did not make anything of this, because I thought the argument stood on its merits, but, looking through my papers, I see that the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science made a statement, dated 14th August, in which it criticised the transfer for reasons not dissimiliar to those I mentioned. We are dealing with an area in which there is fairly tight secrecy, which diminishes debate. Incidentally, if this is the hon. Gentleman's first speech as a Minister—I have not heard him before—may I express my good wishes to him.

Mr. Buck: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, especially as it seems that he has almost bowled me out on one point. He has not bowled me out, because I think the point is well taken that if scientists had had any strength of feeling about the matter there would have been an outburst in the journals. We would not expect unanimous support. While there may be criticism or a feeling of unease in the document to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the point remains legitimate that if there had been widespread unease there would have been quite an outburst in the learned scientific Press.
I should like to reassure the House that the reactor research groups and particularly the Safety and Reliability Directorate will continue to play the same roles. There is no question of a barrier coming down between the AWRE and the AEA in these vital matters or any other. When I was at Aldermaston I looked particularly into the safety side,


which must concern responsible politicians, which we all are by virtue of our position in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of detailed points about the staff side, but perhaps I may leave them to Committee.

Mr. Benn: indicated assent

Mr. Buck: I have here the material to deal with them, but it is appropriate to do so in Committee.
Another point concerned the falling behind in the timetable. One reason was that the last Session was rather crowded.
I had thought that prima facie the point about the negotiations was one which could be made, but having gone into it I find that the final details of transfers should be settled only at the last minute because the final agreement must be based on the current situation. Therefore, while it was possible to obtain broad agreement on certain matters the details of the agreements, the gradings and so on could be settled sensibly only when we came near to the possible transfer date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braille) raised the question of employees who were constituents of his. Briefly, the position is that there is an overall grading-up. Wherever there is a change it will be to the advantage of the person concerned. Certain options on pensions and so on will be left open. The negotiations, which are in their final stages, both as to industrials and non-industrials, have gone very smoothly. I can repeat the assurance given by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State in another place that no one will be worse off, though employees will sometimes have a choice. We can consider the details in Committee.
Having gone into the matter with some care, I should like to underline the weight of evidence for introducing this change. A similar change, if not a change in exactly the same form, was envisaged by earlier Administrations. There seems to be broad agreement on its desirability. I note with pleasure that the Opposition do not intend to divide against

the Bill. We look forward to considering it in further detail in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (WEAPONS GROUP) [MONEY]

Queen's' Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to transfer to the Secretary of State the Weapons Group of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and for connected purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in carrying on any activities which were formerly activities of the Weapons Group; and
(b) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of such money under any other enactment.—[Mr. Rossi.]

MERCHANT SHIPPING

6.0 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move,
That the Merchant Shipping (Disciplinary Offences) Regulations 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1294), dated 17th August 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th August, in the last Session of Parliament, be withdrawn.
It will be noticed that tonight we are to discuss a number of regulations under the Merchant Shipping Acts of which two particularly—one dealing with wages and accounts and one with disciplinary offences—we oppose.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I understand that it is the general wish of the House that this Motion and the following Motions should be all debated together:
That the Merchant Shipping (Seamen's Wages and Accounts) Regulations 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1700), dated 9th November 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th November, be withdrawn.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) (Particulars of Depth of Loading) Regulations 1972 (S.I., 1972, No.


1841), dated 29th November 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Merchant Shipping (Repatriation) Regulations 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1805), dated 27th November 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be annulled.
That this House takes note of the Oil in Navigable Waters (Convention Countries) (Libya and Senegal) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1591), dated 23rd October 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October.
That this House takes note of the Oil in Navigable Waters (Prohibited Sea Areas) (Amendment) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1592), dated 23rd October 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October.
That this House takes note of the Seamen's Savings Banks Regulations 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1304), dated 18th August 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th August, in the last Session of Parliament.
That this House takes note of the Merchant Shipping (Seamen's Documents) Regulations 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1295), dated 17th August 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th August, in the last Session of Parliament.
That this House takes note of the Merchant Shipping (Returns of Births and Deaths) Regulations 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1523), dated 9th October 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th October 1972, in the last Session of Parliament.
That this House takes note of the Merchant Shipping (Maintenance of Seamen's Dependants) Regulations 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1635), dated 31st October 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th November.
That this House takes note of the Merchant Shipping (Property of Deceased Seamen) Regulations 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1697), dated 9th November 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th November.
That this House takes note of the Merchant Shipping (Seamen's Wages) (Contributions) Regulations 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1699), dated 9th November 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th November.
That this House takes note of the Merchant Shipping (Seamen's Allotments) Regulations 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1698), dated 9th November 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th November.
I am prepared to allow the hon. Member to move his first motion and for the other motions to be debated with it. I should, however, remind the House that the first two of the motions that I have listed in particular are not exempted business. If a vote is desired on either of them the necessary Questions must be put before 10 o'clock.

Mr. Prescott: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have taken note of your remarks.
I had been concerned with this legislation for a considerable time before I became a Member of this House. It was one of the causes of my involvement in official and unofficial disputes concerning the shipping industry. It has also concerned general grievances and I am pleased to see that I have the support tonight of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who was a mediator in the 1960 official strike involving similar issues embodied in these regulations.
We observe in these regulations the coming together after discussion of compromises and agreements among various bodies in the industry on recommendations which were made by Lord Pearson and which arose directly out of the seaman's strike in 1966. This taught me a considerable amount about the democratic processes and the embodiment in the regulations of some fundamental principles which are objected to by the union side of the seafaring industry about wages and conditions. This led me to go with a union delegation to protest both to inner councils of the TUC and to the present Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, at No. 10 Downing Street. So I have had a long involvement in the matters referred to by these regulations. If I tend to delve somewhat into what might be considered minor details it is because of what I learned in the efforts to get the original 1894 Merchant Shipping Act amended.
That Act was one of the largest pieces of legislation that have been before the House, containing 784 sections and a large number of schedules. We are now dealing with regulations arising out of the 1971 Act. That was an enabling Act, providing for 34 sets of regulations, 19 of which are now being considered. Most of them are largely acceptable, apart from the two I have mentioned dealing with deductions from wages and disciplinary procedures. They are also the result of consultations and no doubt later this evening, if my hon. Friends catch your eye, they will bring to the attention of the House the circumstances of workers affected under this legislation who have not been consulted. Therefore, the statutory


requirement on the Government to consult has not been fully met. I refer particularly to men who work on the sludge boats, who have had these regulations forced on them from the beginning of this year and are at present in dispute about them.
The regulations also raise a very important parliamentary principle, concerning the time that Parliament has to give to regulations under the democratic process. Constant reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) to this and the Statutory Instruments Committee, on which he is an acknowledged authority in this House. Normally regulations have to be laid for 40 parliamentary days to give an opportunity for anyone to protest, but one of these regulations was notified to Parliament on 18th December. In those circumstances we had only three days' notice before the regulation actually became law on 1st January. We are debating in these regulations laws and, however much we protest, they have been law since 1st January. Parliament has a serious problem here which is highlighted by the Merchant Shipping Acts in not providing sufficient time to debate delegated legislation.
I think it fair to point out that a number of the regulations embody some of the advantages brought about primarily by the courage and foresight of the Labour Government to recognise the justifiable demands for the repeal of the old legislation and the introduction of new laws. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) was President of the Board of Trade when this legislation was introduced. It gave seamen many things which had been denied to them although those things were enjoyed by other industrial workers and I would wish to record appreciation on their behalf. To name a few, they are now guaranteed, in certain circumstances, the right to strike, recognising the unusual nature of their occupation, they are guaranteed wages with no delay in payment and, if delay occurs, penalties are provided. For such an advance seafarers have striven for many years.
The old running sore of character reference by captains who by their whim were able to say that a man's character was not good and thereby blight his

chances of employment by other companies, has been eliminated. The worry about meeting medical expenses has been resolved. Now companies have to meet those expenses, and arrangements are made for them to obtain assistance in doing so. There is provision within the Act to enable the introduction of safety measures into the industry. These are a few of the many advantages of this legislation. It is to the credit of the Labour Government that they, and they alone, heeded the call for this legislation, which had been asked for from many previous Governments.
In my capacity as a trade union official before I became a Member of Parliament I strongly objected to many points which were put forward. Other unions joined us in our objections. Before it went out of office the last Labour Government promised to review the disciplinary provisions which are causing considerable concern in the industry and which we have opposed for many years. We have opposed the idea of going to the courts on matters which arose out of industrial disputes—for instance, the disobeying of an order which may not be of sufficient importance to go before a court.
I am able to say that my party, when it returns to office—as surely it will at the next election—will begin a review of those provisions of the Act. In fairness to the Government, I must point out that they have agreed to review the penal clauses and to take up the promise made by the Labour Government. It was said in 1970 that a three-year period would have to elapse. I hope that a start can be made this year.
Addressing myself to the regulations before us, I want first to deal with those concerning disciplinary offences. These regulations deal with discipline on board vessels, and determine the type of punishment and fine. They lay down an appeal procedure. It will be seen that the offences include the wilful striking of any person, the wilful disobeying of a lawful command without reasonable cause, failure to be available for duty, and sleeping while on duty. We accept that if a man fell asleep at the wheel there would be every reason to fear for the safety of the vessel. That would be a serious offence. No one could argue that it was the same offence if a night


steward fell asleep while waiting for someone to press the bell to order a cup of coffee. Yet they would both be asleep on duty and would face fines of up to £5. We do not accept this. This kind of legislation introduces bitterness into the situation.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: It is a serious offence to fall asleep while at the wheel. If a steward falls asleep in a canteen he may simply be reprimanded.

Mr. Prescott: He may. I will explain what I mean by giving what may be thought to be preposterous examples. They are actual examples with which I have had to deal as a trade union official. When I have protested I have been told that it was the law of the land and that the master was entitled to do what he had done.
When the House is considering disciplinary measures it must bear in mind that these are only one part of a whole range of disciplinary charges which faces the seaman when he commits an offence. The Pearson Inquiry, upon which most of these Regulations are based, put forward a recommendation based on a stringent attitude towards discipline which is completely alien to twentieth-century thinking and which ought not to be followed. In essence, the recommendation said that "greater discipline meant greater safety". It was felt that a whole paraphernalia of disciplinary processes was needed to meet every conceivable situation. The recommendation was that for failing to carry out his duty or disobeying an order it should be possible to deduct £50 from a seaman's wages.
It is possible to fine a man up to £5 on board, but because it might be felt that a greater punishment was warranted the decision was made to include the statutory offences embodied in the Merchant Shipping Acts and to make them complementary to the regulations. This means that a seaman can face a criminal trial and a fine of £100 for a range of offences embodied in the regulations.
In addition, there are industrial committees which can expel men from the industry if it is considered that they are unfit to serve in it and constitute a danger to other seafarers. Alternatively, a man can be suspended. The House must

consider these regulations against the whole range of disciplinary regulations available. The captain has the choice, and may decide to fine a man or take him before the courts or report to the industrial committee ashore.
The National Union of Seamen does not totally oppose the involvement of the criminal law or the statutory provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts; it is prepared to accept that if the safety of the vessel or members of its crews is threatened by the action of one member it is a serious offence. It is prepared to accept that such a person should face imprisonment and heavy financial penalties. We recognise that in a seafaring community everyone depends upon everyone else. However, the union strongly disputes the concept of having a number of disciplinary measures overlapping one another and creating problems, injustices and tensions. Consider the offence of disobeying a lawful command. Pearson argued that not every command could be expected to be reasonable. If a man was ordered to jump over the side he should not obey that order, because it was not reasonable. That was good of Pearson. But he stopped short; he did not envisage any other sort of order being unreasonable.
There are examples of seamen and stewards being given such orders. This is a serious example, and I hope that it will not be thought that I am being flippant. There was a steward who ordered a steak for an officer who had asked that it be cooked rare. It was well done. That man was fined, and logged for disobeying an order. That punishment could not be overruled. The trade union could not do anything about it. Another seaman was given a mattress which was four inches wider than the bunk. The captain ordered that the bunk board must be used. That meant that the mattress had to be bent, and the man could not sleep at night. The master came down and found the bunk board out and fined that seaman for every time that he discovered this, because he was disobeying a lawful command. That man paid up to £8 in fines.
While the superintendent agreed that it was unreasonable of the master, he could not alter the situation. It was clear that the man had disobeyed a lawful


command. I do not suggest that all masters are like that. They do not need to be. It needs only one such master. It needs only one James Goad to sour industrial relations. That is the problem which will arise in implementing these regulations. Furthermore, if a man should combine with another it would constitute another offence. We know a lot about conspiracy, following the "Angry Brigade" trial. It applies equally to the Merchant Shipping Acts. There is, it is said, a safeguard against double prosecution. It may appear to be true, but it is not necessarily so. If we give the power for damages to be claimed against a seaman's wages it does not matter to the man concerned whether the £50 so deducted is described as damages or a fine. The recent case of the "Ocean Monarch", when 200 men were flown home from Australia and £50 deducted from their wages, is an example. That means that the company has taken £10,000 from them.

Mr. Skeet: At a cost to the company of £100,000.

Mr. Prescott: It may well be at a cost of £100,000, but if the solving of an industrial relations problem means that the shipowners get £10,000 from the men and pay out £100,000, it is really a crazy world we are living in. They are not all Communists or militants who get flown home. There is some seriousness in this, and it should be dealt with as an industrial relations matter. It will not solve the problem to bash men over the head with the law. I would have thought that that lesson at least had been learned from the Industrial Relations Act.
What justification is given for these draconian laws in the twentieth century? The Pearson Report says first of all that they are less severe than the law of 1894; a man is not sent to prison now. But there is already a provision in the old law by which a man does not necessarily go to prison; even then it could be adjusted and changed to a fine.
Secondly, Pearson recommended—no justification was given but the Government, backed up by the Civil Service, have adopted the recommendation—that special discipline is needed for seafaring men; a philosophy, embodied in these regulations, which we reject. Pearson says in his report that it is clear that

special disciplinary provisions need to be embodied in the regulations. What evidence is provided for that? There is no evidence anywhere in the report to justify the statement that greater discipline means greater safety or that special discipline is required for the seafaring community.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): Since this is quite an important point, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reply. Will he clarify one point? I am not sure whether what he has just said accords with what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) in the Committee proceedings on the Bill. He said:
We agree that special conditions apply to labour relations at sea and that special practices are required"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 5th February, 1970; c. 375.]
Am I to take it that he is now saying that that view is not his?

Mr. Prescott: What I am saying is that the views are compatible. I think I indicated that we had differences about this matter, that we discussed them, and that we ended by agreeing on some matters and disagreeing on others. I pointed out, on Section 27, that we were prepared to accept that a threat to the safety of a factory is not the same as a threat to the safety of a ship. What we are doing is to move the argument to the next stage and say that we do not think that it justifies the duplication of draconian disciplinary measures. That is an entirely different form of argument. I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. I am trying desperately to get the point over that it is not necessary to duplicate all these penalties. You do not need a steam hammer to break a walnut and the result of all this may only mean ruing the attempt to achieve a happy and harmonious relationship on the vessel itself.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: This is a fairly fundamental point. Throughout the centuries it has been considered that discipline is necessary in ships. Is the hon. Gentleman supporting from the Dispatch Box what has just been said—that he rejects the philosophy that special discipline is required at sea? Is that, or is it not, the Front Bench opinion of his party?

Mr. Prescott: I am sorry I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because if he had waited until I had finished what I have to say on this section he would have seen how I justify that statement and why I am challenging the tenet that you canot get people to do anything unless you smash them over the head or keep them drunk, as was done in the past.
Pearson says that it is clear beyond doubt that the special provisions are needed and states his opinions why, but what evidence is produced? There is none; there is no evidence at all on any page of the report to justify that statement. What criteria are used in reaching this decision? There are no criteria whatsoever; there is only the belief that these provisions should be available. It is like the belief that if one cuts off a man's hand he will not steal a loaf of bread. If we had not questioned that principle we should still apply it today, but we know it is not right because we have tried something different and it has worked. We must approach the problem much more rationally, and not just assume that this is right because everybody believes it is.
No information has been asked for. Nobody has asked how many seamen are logged every year, whether the number has increased this year as compared with last year, or how many people are missing ships. The information has not been collated in any way or presented to Pearson for him to make judgments as to whether the system is working. I hope that in the review period the information will be assessed more rationally, with less reliance on emotional responses.
I come now to a point raised earlier by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Many maritime countries have followed British legislation. We were ahead in merchant shipping Acts, which were followed by many countries. Today we find that Norway does not apply these disciplinary provisions in the home trade and is thinking of taking them out of foreign trade. Sweden, too, is taking that legislation out. The Government of New Zealand—a Labour Government—has just recommended that they be taken out of their maritime legislation. The International Labour Organisation in Geneva this year agreed on the reduction of disciplinary provisions in merchant shipping legislation, since they are believed to be un-

necessary. So already we are lagging behind, and by implementing the present proposals we should be going back; the civilised maritime nations of the world are going forward, and we are going back to 1894.
If somebody says that this legislation is necessary, because it is safer, I must first ask: in what way? All the evidence we have at the moment, and which was put before the Board of Trade and the Pearson Inquiry on the safety of seamen, shows that, to take deaths—because accident figures are not kept for seamen as they are for other industrial workers—the figures are twice as high as for dockers and miners, three times as high as for construction workers, and 14 times as high as for manufacturing workers. The accident figures are similar. They are also higher than in other maritime countries. So, with the strongest disciplinary measures of any maritime country in the world, there is no doubt whether this means greatest safety. I put that forward as a rational argument.
I contest the view that in an emergency a man says, "I will save this man's life, because if I do not I will face a fine of £100". Does anyone believe that such a motive would apply in an emergency? I would be more convinced of the Government's view that it is safer to introduce these provisions if they were introducing regulations with this legislation to provide for the first time safe access for a seaman going on board ship.
There are regulations for the safety of dockers and pilots in going on board ship, yet there have never been regulations to provide safe access for seamen in going on board. The company need provide only a plank from shore to ship for the use of the seamen and will not be breaking the law thereby, but it has to provide a proper gangway for dockers and pilots.
The Pearson Report argued, as did the Rochdale Report, many years ago, for a statutory code for seafaring, but the Government have done nothing about it. The Board of Trade Committee on the Safety of Seamen, of which I was a member—it was appointed by the Labour Government—highlighted in its report in 1971 the fact that there was no regulation covering the safety of access by seamen aboard ship. The Government could take the power but they are not doing so. Do they lack


the will? Is the influence of the shipowners far too great for them?
What about regulations concerning manning? The Rochdale Report recommended such regulations. Some companies are reducing to dangerous levels of manning. What are the Government doing about that? The Rochdale Report argued for more inspectors to find out what was going on, but the Government are reducing the number of inspectors. I have been pressing them for 18 months to prosecute a certain shipowner for sending a ship to sea with only three men. When the weather got too rough, they jumped off. Shipowners are sending their men to sea like that. Where is there a penalty for shipowners who send vessels to sea in dangerous conditions like that? There is nothing in these regulations.
We shall need considerably more justification than the mere phrase, "greater discipline means greater safety". It is said in justification that on passenger vessels in particular we are getting a lot of disciplinary problems—but it is also on those ships that we get greater class distinction between officers and crew than on ordinary ships. The agitation between groups is greater. These big shipping companies have taken to recruiting from the Midlands men who have never been to sea before, and are making the problems worse. Instead, they should be paying decent earnings and providing decent conditions for seamen. But even if one granted the case in regard to passenger vessels there is still an argument for exempting from such disciplinary regulations home waters ships.
When it comes to oil rigs in the North Sea the Civil Service points out to the Minister that safety regulations are needed. The rigs carry "captains" who have never been captains of ships, but they are covered by regulations with the disciplining provisions foreign to that industry.
The seamen will oppose these disciplinary measures in the regulations and there will be a crisis until we bring justice into the situation. We shall go on having blowups like that aboard the "Ocean Monarch", because the shipowners are allowed to use the law in defending dangerous situations.
I remind the House that a committee on board the "Empress of Canada" in 1971 negotiated an agreement with the

captain, but he did not carry it out. He simply said, "I am the captain and you will do as you are told." In the end, of course, the crew walked ashore and the captain had to be replaced. Negotiation is the only true path to proper conditions, and I call upon the Government to take back these regulations and give serious thought to the whole process of penal legislation for seamen.
Regulation No. 1700, issued in 1972, again perpetrated grave injustice on the British seafarers. That regulation allows deductions from wages. Paragraph 6 causes most concern. In certain cases a deduction of up to £50 is allowed from a seaman's wages. He signs articles which are the same as a contract of employment. Most of the industrial agreements and the conditions of work which the seaman has are embodied in general industrial agreements. The National Maritime Board and Lord Pearson recommended standardisation of the articles, which was a good thing. but in standardising the articles the Government have retained the right of a captain to deduct up to £50 from a seaman's wages in a civil liability case. This is not a fine in itself; it is regarded as payment in damages. It is true that the Act specifies £100, and I think that the union will welcome the reduction to £50. But the same principle is involved—the right of a company to deduct from a man's wages.
It is still a criminal offence for a man to miss his vessel. If it is felt that the offence is not so serious, the company can say, "We will deduct damages from the man and just fine him". If a man returns certain personal property, like a jumper or a mattress, with what is regarded as more than fair wear and tear the company can assess damage and deduct accordingly from the man's wages. It also means that deductions can be made for damage to the property of the company involved in a man's work.
For absence without leave a seaman can face a fine of £100 under the Act, and, again, £50 in damages can be deducted from his wages with a further £50 if he is taken to court. In the "Ocean Monarch" case, the shipping company flew 200 crew members home, and a total of £10,000 was deducted from their wages. Yet we are told that the company altogether had to spend


£100,000. It was a strange way to settle the disagreement. The company decided to do a Captain Bligh act. Indeed, in a sense it reversed the old situation. In the old days we used to deport people to Australia and not from it.
Many crew members arrived home destitute. There is an important point of principle here. On their arrival some of them were given a note saying that they owed the company £45. They only had £5 in their wages account, so they were given a deficit of £45. So they themselves ended up with a bill at the end of the day.
Thus, if seamen are absent without leave, or in other circumstances disobey the regulations, they can have £50 deducted from their wages, with a further £50 if the case is taken to court. They can he fined for disobeying a lawful command to return to the ship—which was the command given in the case of the "Ocean Monarch". They can be fined £50 in the courts, or have £50 deducted from their wages. Should a union convener and members of the crew get together, they are liable to a conspiracy charge. Under these regulations they will be combining to commit a criminal act—disobedience of a legal command. They can face an open-ended conspiracy, with severe penalties and damages and possible imprisonment.
Parliament has tried to deal with the problem of civil debt by passing legislation allowing attachment of earnings. If a man does not pay his civil debt, his earnings can be attached. But the legislation also guarantees to the man that a certain amount of money will be retained by him and that he will not be left entirely destitute. Seamen were exempted from that legislation. Why? Because the Board of Trade said that a seaman has an accumulation of wages over a long period and that it would be unfair to attach wages which accumulated by the nature of the job. For this and other reasons, the Board of Trade felt that seamen should be exempt from the attachment of earnings legislation. That view was accepted by Parliament. Under the Industrial Relations Act, fines could not be imposed on seamen by attachment of earnings; the seaman would simply go to gaol if he did not pay the fine. How-

ever, we have seen with the dockers that that sort of position does not matter anyway.
In a case where a seaman is absent without leave and the company wants to assess damages from his wages, the captain can decide that the seaman has committed an offence under these regulations. The captain is the man who assesses the damages and then deducts the amount from the seaman's wages. Nowhere in British law, as I understand it—and there are others here who can perhaps better assess this—is such a privilege ever given to the plaintiff in a case to assess his own damages and deduct them from wages he controls. He is the judge, the jury and the assessor. Not only that, but because of the exemptions to this legislation, and due to these regulations, the captain does not even have to allow the man the means to get home. Therefore, without the protection under the attachment to earnings situation a man can be destitute, once the captain has assessed the situation and has made such deduction as he thinks fit on behalf of the owners.
I would point out here as a legal point on this, that no judge in this country can attach a seaman's wages. Parliament says: "You shall not do that". But apparently the captain of a British ship can do what a judge in this country cannot do. That captain is not even legally trained to make a proper assessment, yet he can do what Parliament says a judge cannot do in the case of a seaman—assess his own damages. If he wants to appeal in this situation the seaman can seek to take the matter to court, but he can appeal only to the superintendent, and if the superintendent rules against him, under the National Shipping Act he is denied the right to take the matter to court.
The justification for this situation, according to Pearson, was apparently that the shipowner must have this advantage, because otherwise it would mean that people would be held up if there was a court case, that witnesses would be required, that it would be expensive in time, and that owners might break contracts with cargo owners. These are problems in suing on contracts. But what happens to the seaman if he wants to take it to court? He has to call the same witnesses, he has the same problems


in getting his case together, and he is the weaker party in the situation. In much other legislation, such as rent, leasehold reform and hire purchase, there is the precedent that in such legislation Parliament strengthens the weaker party in a contract relationship. But in this case Parliament is weakening the weaker party and strengthening the stronger party, making it extremely difficult for the seaman to get the wages to which he is entitled.
Even if the case is left over and he is not guilty, he still has to pursue it through the courts. Surely that cannot be right, by any kind of definition. To add insult to injury the shipowners have sent to this House a brief, which hon. Members will have received, saying, "The Pearson Committee gave us this privilege and gave special reasons why". The reasons why are said to be: because the seaman is guaranteed his wages—that is good of them—and wages must be paid at the specified time; that the shipowner may be liable for further wage payments if they are not so paid; that deductions from wages cannot be made unless they are authorised by regulation; that wages are protected from assignment, and—this is what really sticks in the craw—that the Attachment of Earnings Act does not apply to seamen. That privilege, as I have explained, can deny seamen their rights and return them destitute. In my definition of the word, that can no longer be a privilege, and only further burdens the injustice on seamen.
I say to this House tonight that we on this side will oppose these regulations, and with justification. We would ask hon. Members opposite in considering their vote on these regulations, are they happy that they are carrying out their obligations as Members of Parliament in making a seaman in this contractual relationship the weaker party and strengthening the stronger party in this situation, in making the seaman guilty until he proves his innocence? It is an important legal proviso in this country that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. Here we are to say to the seaman, "You are guilty until you prove your innocence". We would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite: are you happy that we shall be reversing what is considered to be a fundamental part of our legislation? I know that this is a period of time when

we are reversing just about everything but I would have thought that this is an important point. Are Members happy to impose such disciplinary measures, and are they sure they are necessary?
I have spent a long time on these regulations but I want the House to realise that though on the surface they may not seem to be important they raise very important fundamental issues, which this House must be concerned to protect, because these seamen are constituents of hon. Members opposite equally as they are mine. Clearly, therefore, we have a duty to oppose these regulations.
In answering I hope the Minister can give us an answer on one point. Under the old Act a seaman's wages could be kept by the Board of Trade if he missed his ship and the owner objected to payment, although the owner could still get money for his expenses. Under this new Act the seaman will be entitled, after deduction, to this money. But the Department must have in hand a lot of money. I do not know how much it has, and I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer this tonight, but he may be able to note it. I would like to know how much money is held and for how many seamen, and whether he will now be prepared to disburse this money back to the seamen even though in some cases shipowners are objecting, and even if—as in one case on which I have written to the Minister, on which he could do nothing—a shipowner has gone bankrupt. There the firm had gone out of business and there was nobody whose permission could be asked, so we could not get an amount of £200 for the seaman. We would ask the Minister to look into this and tell us how much money is involved, and to disburse it.
I have taken a long time, and I apologise to the House, but this is complicated legislation. I hope that the House will have learned tonight that seamen are having to deal with complicated legislation and that we are going to make those grievances worse by passing these regulations.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I am not sure whether this is the first time the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has spoken from the Dispatch Box. If this is so, I


congratulate him. It was as a very refreshing voice. It as a different voice from that of the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) who led from the Government side when we last discussed this topic. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would for a jingle moment have said the words that the hon. Member has said—"We reject the view that a special discipline is required at sea". Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Bill—and I see him in his place—accepted the position that a special discipline is required. He accepted it for the reasons given in the Pearson Committee Report.
It is not true to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that the Pearson Committee gave no reasons. It gave many reasons. Those reasons may not appeal to the hon. Gentleman but I will read them out:
In our opinion it is clear beyond doubt that a special disciplinary regime of some kind is required by the special conditions of seafaring life. Discipline is necessary in the interests of safety, in order to secure prompt and co-ordinated action by the crew on any occasion of emergency for saving the ship, the crew, the passengers and the cargo from the perils of the sea. Discipline is necessary in the interests of efficiency in order to secure the proper operation and handling of the ship and its equipment at all times. Also, discipline is necessary for preserving law and order in the confined and inescapable conditions, because the ship is a 'total' institution in which the seamen works, eats, sleeps and spends his leisure time in the same limited area"—
something which does not, of course, apply to 99 per cent., of the installations on shore.

Mr. Prescott: I know the reasons that were given but the Pearson Committee did not justify them. My argument was whether the Committee justified those opinions.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The justification appears in the words. What the Committee says is true. Here is a remarkable and unique organisation in which men are confined together day and night, sometimes for weeks or months on end—something that does not happen on shore. It is for that reason that, down the ages, it has always been thought essential that there should be special provision for seamen—rather as in a prisoner-of-war camp, if one likes to put it that way.

They are confined together for days or months, and they must have special conditions. This is not an insult to seamen. It is to their glory that they are able to cope with these special circumstances in peace and that they have the ability to get on with one another—something which some of us in this House, judging from the noise that we sometimes make, would find much more difficult.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am sure that in future times the hon. and learned Gentleman will regret the parallel that he has just drawn. Would he not agree, first, that there were members on the Committee—and from these benches my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), myself and many others—who did not accept the argument that was put forward by our Front Bench?
Secondly, there would be some substance in the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument if the Labour Government, and the Tory Party when in opposition, did not say that all these disciplinary procedures should not apply to fishermen in very much the same circumstances of undertaking voyages for very much the same length of time and for far longer than, for example, the ferry boat journey between Dover and Calais?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: There are three points there. On the first one, there is nothing shameful in being a prisoner of war. It is an honourable status, and I have no feeling that in the future I shall be ashamed of having said so. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that during the debate upstairs he and one or two of his hon. Friends objected to what his Front Bench was doing. All I was pointing out was that this was the first time that we had had it from the Front Bench and not from the back benches opposite, which is a very different kettle of fish. It shows what a change is coming over the leadership of the Labour Party, and tonight is an example and a forecast of things to come.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is an insult to seamen of the present day and to all seamen of past generations, who have put up with this necessary discipline in ships, to pretend that they were wrong, and that their


bravery and patience through the years have been to no purpose?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Those are strong words, but I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the history of the sea has shown that it is essential to have special conditions in order to allow our Merchant Navy, which is the glory of our life, to sail the oceans of the world in conditions, during 99 per cent. of the time, of peace, good order and discipline.
Another exceptional thing about the sea as opposed to the shore is that the master has no police force and no fire brigade at his disposal. On shore, if there is danger from criminal elements or from fire or other dangerous agencies of that sort the head of the installation, or the head of the home, or whatever it is, can summon up additional forces. The master has no such ability and has to act quickly, and everybody in their heart of hearts realises that.
I gather that the hon. Gentleman objects to the very much reduced powers—reduced from the past—of the master on the question of fines. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument about conspiracy is well founded. If there is a charge of conspiracy, I do not think the master has power to deal with it. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that a conspiracy charge would have to be brought on shore because it is not a matter that is listed among those matters which the master can try, and rightly so. Conspiracy is obviously far too serious for the master to try. Indeed, I should have thought that, by and large, the master's powers would be of advantage to the crew, in that there would be no publicity, or very little. Far be it from me to decry the panoply of the law, but one or two ill-advised and ill-disposed people sometimes do so. In these relatively small matters I should have thought that it would be very much to the advantage of the men not to be subject to the panoply of the law in the way that the poor landlubber is inevitably obliged to be, even in small cases.
There is no question—and I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree if lie considers this—of any double peril. This matter was debated in Committee in 1970, and I think that that bogy has finally been laid. There is no reversal of the burden of proof. There is nothing in

these regulations or in the Act to say that the man is guilty until proved innocent. There is the normal burden of proof upon those who prosecute and object.
It might be said that the tribunal itself will be prejudiced—I follow the point there—but it is true to say that there is a right of appeal. It is also true to say that in order to avoid the taint of the master having the double rôle of prosecutor and judge at the same time, which the hon. Member mentioned, provisions were introduced—very much at the instance of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—for various experimental committees of members of the crew to take the place of the master. I think I am right in saying that these committees have never been used. Not once has any seaman offered to appear before a committee of his fellows rather than before the master. I agree that it is a very small experiment so far, but that has been the experience. Therefore, fear of the master and the fear that the seaman does not trust the master, seem from experience—small experience, but some experience—to be not right. My view is that most seamen prefer the present system to either that of being tried by a committee of his fellows aboard or that of waiting ashore for trial by the ordinary courts. One reason for that is that the master has the power to remit the fine, whereas courts of law do not, or not so readily. The hon. Member knows more about this than I do, but I believe that the master frequently remits the fine. If the seaman subsequently commits no further offence and does his duty, the fine is remitted by the end of the voyage. That strikes me as being a very good and flexible procedure, but one which would be completely wiped out if he had to wait until he came ashore.
I think that, on the grounds of discipline, the case against some discipline being in the hands of the master has not been made out.
Then we come to the question of fines and of the deduction of pay to a limit of £50. The right hon. Member for Caernarvon, whom I am glad to see returning to the Chamber, was quite explicit in Committee upstairs in 1970 about the deduction of this relatively small amount. He said that he thought that there was no serious disability on the


seamen involved. That is a balanced and reasonable view. I cannot understand why the Labour Party is throwing over the right hon. Member for Caernarvon who is such an ornament to our debates and, I hope, will continue to be so for long years to come.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that we said at the time that we would review these clauses. We reduced substantially the impact of disciplinary provision on the workers in this industry in that Act. We did not do all that I personally or the then Government wanted to do, so we repeated both upstairs and here our intention of watching the operation of the Act for two years, when we could, by regulation, further mitigate and possibly annul the disciplinary provisions. The hon. and learned Gentleman should remember that, and give me the credit for having stood on that ground both upstairs and in the discussions on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I give the right hon. Gentleman every credit. We have done the same. We have reviewed and reduced this power. The maximum deduction recommended by Pearson and tolerable and possible under the Act was £100. In agreement with the National Union of Seamen we have reduced it to £50, and there have been other modifications in favour of reduction. That shows that this is a developing process and that no one party has the monopoly of a desire to see that this imposition is reasonable. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there is no serious disability on the seamen involved, and the imposition need be kept only where necessary. If it is found that the deduction of £100 is effective only to the same extent as a deduction of £50, of course £50 shall be substituted, and in fact has been. To work up a great rage and a great class war in this matter within an interval of two years since the Act was passed seems to be breaking a butterfly on a wheel. I hope, for those and many other reasons, that the motion to annul will be rejected.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East

(Mr. Prescott) on his appearance for the first time on the Opposition Front Bench. I say with humility that I found his speech weighty, eloquent and concise. If I may express that in nautical terms by referring to the Douglas Scale 7 of the state of the sea, it was a heavy swell of average length. Above all, I found it refreshing to have booming out from the Front Bench the authentic voice of the British seamen. Long may that voice be heard in this Chamber. It is a change to hear the voice of the British seamen rather than the academic voice of a landlubber or owner, or the voice of that minority of Merchant Navy or Royal Naval officers who believe that the only way in which merchant seamen or Royal Naval seamen can be persuaded to perform their duty in all circumstances is by the imposition of draconian disciplinary measures. British seamen in the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy perform their duties not in fear of disciplinary measures but because they have joined the merchant fleet or the Royal Navy to take part in the adventure of being on the high seas, and heavy disciplinary codes are not needed to induce them to perform their duty.
As I develop my speech the House will appreciate that I do not follow all the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East or the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on the disciplinary regulations. In the short time available to me I want to concentrate on the impact of these disciplinary regulations upon vessels and seamen operating from Erith, in my constituency.
A grave situation has developed in my constituency as a result of an attempt to apply the disciplinary regulations on the Greater London Council's sludge disposal ships operating from Beckton sewerage works and Crossness sewerage works in my constituency. The GLC owns five ships which operate from these two sewerage works and approximately 80 seamen are employed in two shifts—40 per shift—working week and week about in the operation of those five sludge vessels.
These seamen have been working happily and enthusiastically—apart from minor difficulties which arise from time to time in any situation—for the GLC under a staff agreement freely negotiated by the GLC and the men and their


representatives. The reason why the men have been locked out from their employment is that it was thought that the staff agreement and the GLC's staff code were adequate for all disciplinary matters relating to the operation of the ships. The paragraphs which relate to discipline on those five vessels is contained on page 15 of the staff agreement, headed "Discipline". They read:
15. All staff employed under this agreement will be subject to the Council's disciplinary procedures as set out in the staff code.
16. A master may, in the event of serious indiscipline or misconduct, recommend to the superintendent that the member or members of the crew concerned should, in the interest of the efficient running of the vessel, be suspended from duty while the disciplinary procedures are taking place.
The men on those five ships operating from my constituency have been happily working under an agreement containing a code of conduct with a specific reference to disciplinary measures. Then along come these regulations and the GLC determines, for reasons unknown to myself or the men, to try to apply the disciplinary regulations to these ships and their operators.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to Section 99 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which requires consultation between the Department of Trade and Industry and other interested representatives of masters and seamen affected by the regulations. I am informed that no such consultation took place with the men concerned or with their trade unions—the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Public Employees. It seems to me that the absence of proper consultation is a breach of the law that should weigh heavily with the Government in trying to find a way of exempting from the disciplinary regulations the ships which operate from Erith.
I wish to put to the Government several submissions on this serious issue. As a result of this lockout there is now being deposited into the River Thames thousands of tons of sewage sludge, which is polluting once again this great river that runs through the heart of London, after the British taxpayers and London ratepayers have spent millions in trying to clean it up. Even more serious, in my constituency within a short distance of homes occupied by ordinary men and

women and their children, there is being deposited on the land, in so-called lagoons, sewage sludge which cannot be taken to the sea and dumped. I have the gravest apprehensions about the effect of dumping sewage on land adjacent to populated areas. It is a serious situation which demands immediate action and we expect a response from the Government tonight.
I submit that under Section 96(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 there is provision for non-seagoing ships to fall outside the disciplinary regulations. I believe that these ships operating from Erith fall in the category of non-seagoing ships and ought to be exempt. The soil dumping ground in Barrow Deep, in the mouth of the Thames, lies within the boundary of the Port of London Authority area. This is shown clearly on the current Admiralty chart which I now have before me. I assume that the PLA vessels operating in the area beyond the dumping ground do not come within the Merchant Shipping Act and the disciplinary code. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister will correct me.
There is a schedule in the Port of London Authority Act 1968 which slightly qualifies the limits shown on the Admiralty chart to be in the PLA area. That limit comes about because of paragraph (f) of Schedule 1 to the Port of London Authority Act 1968 which refers to:
… any waters which are not for the time being within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's domains…
I am advised that the territorial limits lie further towards the land from the line of the Admiralty chart that is claimed to be part of the PLA's jurisdiction.
I have taken careful steps to have that line charted, and I have discovered that the territorial line runs slap bang through the middle of the soil dumping ground. Therefore, I submit that the dumping ground is within the PLA limits; secondly, that it is on the boundary, lying half in and half out of the territorial limit; and thirdly, I submit that this area is comprised of what is known as smooth or partially smooth waters. The former Minister of State at the Board of Trade, who was responsible for the Committee stage of the Merchant Shipping Bill, said


that vessels operating in smooth or partially smooth waters should be exempt from the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. I confess that I have had some difficulty in obtaining a precise definition of the line showing the summer and winter smooth and partially smooth line.

Mr. Onslow: Has the hon. Gentleman been out to the Barrow Deep and, if so, did he think that he was at sea?

Mr. Wellbeloved: It is some time since I was in the waters of the Barrow Deep. In fact, the last time I was there was when I was in the Royal Navy. I have not been there in recent years, but I have no doubt that the Greater London Council will make facilities available to me to do so.
I have spoken to the fine men who man these ships, and they do not share the view that the waters are so rough that they should come within the Merchant Shipping Act provisions and under the disciplinary code to enable them to face the perils of the Thames estuarial waters. They feel that they can cope with the navigational hazards without the hazards which the Minister is now to put in their way.
I find difficulty in identifying on the chart the precise line of the smooth and partially smooth waters. I am advised that they run close to the soil dumping area. I am also advised that if one puts an arbitrary line on an Admiralty chart, it can be seen that the water half a mile on one side of it or half mile the other side is not likely to be very different. Therefore, whether the line is marginally inland of the soil dumping area or further out towards the PLA limit it is a marginal matter which should not prejudice the GLC sludge vessels being given exemption.
There are two other reasons why I submit that these vessels should be exempt. I am advised that these sludge vessels are not registered to go to sea. I hope the Minister can reply on that point. Furthermore, the men who man these ships, or some of them, are not registered merchant seamen. They are recruited by the GLC, not as merchant seamen to go out on the high seas but as GLC staff employees to operate in the River Thames in the disposal service

into the dumping grounds within the smooth or partially smooth waters.
If the Minister says that for technical reasons these vessels cannot be exempt under Section 96, then I shall put to him a second point. The Secretary of State has power under Section 1(5) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 to exempt certain types of operation. I believe that he should exercise that exemption in respect of these five sludge vessels. The average time taken by vessels from Erith Crossness sewerage works out to the Barrow Deep for the discharge of sewage sludge and back to the pier is 10 hours. So twice every 24 hours these men are back, tied up in my constituency. Why should they be under a disciplinary code which is designed to deal with men on the high seas who are away for weeks and perhaps months? If a man tells a captain to "get stuffed" while on the vessel, the captain knows that a few hours later that man will be back on shore and that he does not need the Draconian disciplinary powers contained in the Act.
All the powers required are already available to the GLC and to the masters of these vessels in the freely negotiated agreement and staff code that is already in operation. The Minister should examine them. He should examine them also because by custom and practice these five sludge vessels are not vessels upon the high seas. They are not regarded as such by the Greater London Council or by the men working on them. They do not see their job as being a sea-going one. What is more, because of the staff code, any disciplinary powers which would be required by any reasonable master or officer are already in existence—

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North): Although I have no seamen in St. Pancras, North, there are canals. I hope, therefore, that these disciplines do not apply to the "Jenny Wren" on the Regent's Park Canal. But in common with all the residents of inner London, I have some interest in this problem of sludge carrying. Has my hon. Friend taken into account the rumour that there is a sand and gravel company which is interested in a contract to carry out sludge and to bring back sand and gravel at no cost to itself?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I have heard this suggestion, and I have no doubt that there


is some foundation for it. I can only say at this stage that I have not discovered any foundation upon which I could stand to make that claim. But I have every intention of pursuing the matter, and if the facts suggested by my hon. Friend emerge I shall return to it in this House on another occasion.
I have put to the Minister two reasons why these sludge vessels should not be covered by the regulations. The third submission that I make is that the Greater London Council is the owner of the vessels and the employer of all those who pass down the Thames on them. The council has the right not to operate these disciplinary regulations because they are not mandatory upon the owners or upon the employers, if I understand the position, though I look with some anxiety at my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East when I say that.
I am told that masters have the legal right to operate the regulations if they so choose. However if the Greater London Council said that it was content to rely upon its negotiated staff agreement and upon its own disciplinary procedures, I cannot conceive of a situation where any reasonable master would not say that this was a sensible view to take and would not forgo the exercise of his undoubted legal right to operate the regulations. If the Greater London Council found it within its capacity to put that to the masters of the vessels and to the men, there could be a return tomorrow morning to the moving of that sludge and the dumping of it in the Thames estuary. That movement could take place on the basis of the existing staff agreement and disciplinary code.
Erith faces a situation of the utmost gravity because of the dumping of sludge upon land close to inhabited homes for which I am responsible in this House as a Member of Parliament. I live in dread that a child of one of my constituents will wander on to this virtually unfenced land and fall into the foul sludge which has been deposited there by the Greater London Council. All hell would be raised not only in Erith but in the country at large if a child were killed in sewage filth dumped on open ground. This is the reality of the situation. It is the reality that my constituents have to face, and it is a reality that those in power in the GLC

must know could happen at any moment while the sludge remains on virtually unfenced land.
In my constituency at the moment we are sitting upon an unexploded stink bomb—[Interruption.] That may be a matter for laughter here, 15 miles from the scene. But I happen to live 1¾ miles from this sewage sludge, and many people whom I represent live within a few hundred yards of it. We are fortunate that this lockout has occurred in very cold weather. If it had occurred in the height of summer the stink bomb would have exploded.
The Greater London Council and the Government have a responsibility to remove that filthy stink bomb from ground which is close to decent human beings who are trying to live in comfort and dignity a few hundred yards away from it. The GLC says that it is half a mile or even a mile away. In reality the distance is a few hundred yards. There are those who say that there is no problem since it is a long way from the nearest homes. Let anyone who says that come and live there. Let him say to my constituents, "You come and live miles away in Westminster and let me, the bold councillor, come and live in your council flat until this bomb has gone". Let no one tell me that it is too far away to be any danger or inconvenience to my constituents unless he is prepared to live with the people whom I represent.
It is unacceptable in 1973 that this situation should be thrust upon the decent ordinary people of Erith and Crayford and upon the decent ordinary men who man these five sludge vessels. They should not be put in this difficult position.
Each year the Greater London Council seeks to pass through this House its General Powers Bill and its Money Bill. Those Bills will not pass until the dispute is settled, these vessels are back in operation and my constituents are freed from the desperate situation that they face at Thamesmead.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I do not propose to take up any of the constituency matters raised by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved). Suffice it to say that when he is taking a walk on a Sunday afternoon


over some unfenced area in his constituency, I hope on behalf of his constituents that he does not fall into the sludge. I am sure that everyone would be mortified at the result if he did.
I prefer to bring discussion on these regulations back to a little reality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In Statutory Instrument Number 1294, which has been referred to as "Draconian measures", one reads references to the disciplinary offences for a seaman to whom the regulations apply. They are wilfully to strike any person, wilfully to disobey a lawful command, failure to be available for duty, failure to report, being asleep on duty, being under the influence of drink or drugs, bringing on board any offensive weapons, and wilfully damaging the ship or throwing any property overboard.
If those are Draconian measures, one would think that the penalties should be exceedingly severe. However, Regulation No. 8 refers to the fine that may be imposed on a seaman for a disciplinary offence under Regulation No. 3 to which I have just referred. It says that it
…shall be an amount not exceeding £2 or, in the case of a second or subsequent commission of that offence … an amount not exceeding £5.
This is what they term "Draconian" offences. Where there happens to be a naked light which could blow up a vessel carrying inflammable liquids, where common sense would naturally dictate the utmost caution, the offence is punishable by a fine not exceeding £10. I think that every seaman is reasonable. I have been to sea. Most of us went to sea during the war. The way to avoid fines is to act responsibly. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but by being wise, prudent, co-operative and responsible fines can be completely averted and no proceedings are required. Of course, one has to lay down regulations for situations where people through negligence or wilfulness do certain acts which create dangers.
These "Draconian" measures also provide that the master on the spot can remit them for good conduct or reopen the case if further evidence is provided. The person who has been fined is also entitled to be represented at the hearing by a friend and he can take the case to appeal.
Anybody reading the earlier stage in HANSARD would possibly come to the conclusion that the Government—the Socialist Government—were wicked to pass the 1970 Act and that it was bad for the two parties to have got together and agreed. However, when they look at the regulations which I have carefully explained—No. 1294—they will recognise that the term is mischievous when it is described as "Draconian".
I listened very carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I congratulate him on his first occasion at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Prescott: Second.

Mr. Skeet: Then I shall be watching for the third occasion when we may hear more convincing arguments why the regulations should not stand. I find it difficult to follow what he envisages. First if we are to have disciplinary measures how are they to be tested? If he does not like courts, if he does not like the master, if he does not like committees on board, what will be the test? Or is he going to say as was said under the Industrial Relations Act, "We do not like courts at all and therefore we will not use them"? The hon. Gentleman used the phrase, "To be settled in an industrial relations manner". I wonder whether I am reading too much into his words by saying that he means that we have no courts, no committees, nothing—we just have a long discussion of the issues involved. Perhaps I have the answer. In reality it must be a court or the master.

Mr. Prescott: I am reluctant to intervene, because I took a long time in opening the debate. I pointed out that we agreed to have it decided by negotiation—representatives of the men negotiating with representatives of the management. That is not so radical. It has been with us for many years.
Secondly, we have industrial committees ashore manned by both sides of industry dealing with disciplinary matters—for example, where a man goes missing at sea or in another country and comes back or has been involved in a fight on board the vessel. Greater penalties are involved there because the man can face suspension or expulsion from the industry.


However, under these measures he will be fined.

Mr. Skeet: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
Let us consider the "Ocean Monarch" to which he referred. The seamen wanted a bonus because the Australian Government revalued their currency and that reduced seaman's earnings. They wanted £17·50 per man per month. An offer was made that they should have one extra day's leave per man per month if under 900 passengers were carried and two days extra if over 900 passengers were carried. It went to a ballot. The ballot was interesting. I understand that 130 voted in favour of industrial action, that 70 voted against, and that 80 members did not vote or attend the meeting. If we add the last two together the vote would have been against industrial action. The men were finally charged or logged for being absent from their place of duty and further logged for not being on board at the appointed time of sailing and a number of men were discharged.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There are a few missing here.

Mr. Skeet: I should think it was reasonable for the master to decide that issue.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, indicated that we should have a shore court to decide this matter. This is not practical. The master was there on the spot. He has to follow the procedure laid down in the Act and in the regulations. This matter must be carefully logged. Deductions were made from the men's pay. After all, they had acted in this manner. Is that matched by the enormous loss that the company sustained? As I mentioned earlier the £100,000——

Mr. Skinner: Not enough.

Mr. Skeet: Of course, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may say that it is not enough. He is used to industrial strife. It does not matter to him that the innocent public have to pay. His attitude seems to be to hell with the public, which is quite an unreasonable approach to take.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman said it.

Mr. Skeet: I am always keen to see that justice is done for the trade unionist, and in this case for the seamen. The employers in this instance are entitled to justice and the third party the passengers, should be considered. Unfortunately, hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to see them, but they are the innocent ones.

Mr. Wellbeloved: With those sentiments I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the innocent parties to whom I referred are the citizens of Erith and Crayford and the seamen on those five sludge vessels and that the guilty party is the GLC and that we must protect the innocent from the intransigence of the Greater London Council.

Mr. Skeet: I will not pursue the hon. Gentleman on his parochial dispute. I have not referred to it. There may be considerable substance in what he says, but I prefer to keep to the generality of the issue.
I want to compliment the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) who took part in the proceedings on the 1970 Act—prior to that it was the 1894 Act—in which there were nine offences for which there could have been imprisonment. This has been whittled down over the years. There is only one offence now punishable with imprisonment, Section 27, causing death or serious injury. I agree that the other sections, 28 to 31, covering drunkenness and drugs, wilful disobedience, concerted disobedience and absence at the time of sailing are governed in part by regulations but have in common that they are all subject to fines. I should think that this is evolution in the right direction. Is it sensible. We have heard about the promise of a review. The hon. Gentleman suggests a review in three years from the date of the Act.

Mr. Harold Walker: Two years.

Mr. Skeet: This would seem a sensible way of looking at the matter. If these regulations are now lodged it should be three years from date of operation. I hope that further modifications will be made in due course.

Mr. Walker: We must have the record right. I was involved on the Government side in proceedings on what was then the


Bill. The pledge to review was given by the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and it was a pledge to review in the light of experience at the end of two years after enactment.

Mr. Skeet: I will not dispute what the hon. Gentleman said. He was there at the time and I was not. However, I suggest that now that the regulations have been brought in we should see how they operate and after a period they could be reviewed. If further evolutions are necessary, they could be inducted.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: It will be within the recollection of those who served on that Committee that those on this side of the House were pressing right hon. Members of the Opposition the whole time to provide the regulations just so that we could get experience at an early date. In point of fact, it has taken a long time to get them finalised.

Mr. Onslow: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) moves on from that point, perhaps I may be able to help the House. After the change of Government in 1970, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked a Question on this very matter—perhaps I might remind him of the exact terms of the exchange—of my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) who was then President of the Board of Trade. The hon. Member asked the President of the Board of Trade
if he will review within a three-year period the penal clauses contained in the Shipping Act, 1970".
The reply was:
Yes. We shall review the position. Should we then feel that these provisions remain necessary to preserve safety at sea we should not propose any change in them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 24th July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 298.]

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am grateful to the Minister for making that interjection, which is helpful. But he will mention, I hope, for the information of the House, that that statement referred to penal clauses, the clauses of the Bill as it was then being operated as an Act. That is extremely important.

Mr. Skeet: Right hon. and hon. Members will be able to make their own

speeches in due course. But there will be opportunity of making a fuller statement later, so perhaps I could move on.
I am firmly of the view that it is necessary to maintain reasonable discipline at sea. The whole cast of modern society is towards the acceptance of maximum discussions practicable on outstanding issues. No one will suggest that being on a ship is the same as being in a factory. I should have thought that people would be willing to accept the verdict put forward by a master when there is a minor difficulty, for example, with members of the crew, as opposed to a shore tribunal. if it is a case where a ship is, for instance, on the Australia run, is anyone going to suggest that it will be necessary to wait until the seaman comes right back to the United Kingdom before he is tried by a land tribunal or court?
I should have thought that it was the most sensible course to maintain the present system, where a master can give his judgment immediately and, on further good conduct during the return journey, the master could have the fine remitted. That seems to make sense. Obviously if there is to be a court or some tribunal or body which has been elected by the representatives of the seamen aboard, this will not be satisfactory. Therefore, I suggest that it is the right course to maintain the verdict of the master.
I have emphasised that under the present disposition the seaman has the right of representation and of appeal. It is incumbent on the master to record the offence in the log. If he does not do so under the right procedure, he is liable himself to be fined £20. Therefore there is adequate protection. It may be said. "Why not treat them all like fishermen, who generally return to port. I could understand local tribunals or local committees operating on that basis, but when people are on the ocean runs between the United Kingdom and America or Australia, these conditions do not apply. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may say that it still happens. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has to face the logic of events. He quoted countries in Scandinavia which are tiny compared with the United Kingdom and whose navies and mercantile marine are minute by comparison. Are we to suggest that


we should follow their regulations? The hon. Member mentioned Norway, Sweden and Denmark. I could mention the Netherlands, Belgium and France, which continue to respect the verdict of the master. The hon. Member mentioned countries and I have mentioned others in return. These countries have not found the verdict of the master unsatisfactory, particularly when society has evolved to the point when special protection is given to the seamen in order that they may receive a fair trial.
I emphasise that one can avoid penalties at all times by being responsible and, that, further, as there are remissions, it may be that the fine is completely avoided. Also, in many cases—such is the nature of good masters on ships—admonishment will be sufficient and nothing else will follow.

Mr. Frank Marsden: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's speech closely. On more than one occasion he has mentioned a fine. He quoted a fine of £2 and then £5. He said that they were hardly a deterrent. They are not likely to be a deterrent to someone earning £100 a week, but surely they are a deterrent to someone who is earning as little as £17.50 a week.

Mr. Skeet: If they are not a deterrent, it is extraordinary why hon. Members of the Opposition are suggesting that this procedure should be abolished. I should have thought that most people want to be responsible and conform to the law. I know that present practices are a survival from many years past, but there is a great dissimilarity between a shore base and a ship, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen has described as an institution in itself. Therefore, one has to have a peculiar type of discipline, which must nevertheless be fair.
I do not want to weary the House but I wish to mention one other matter. We have learned much about sludge around Erith, but it seems important that we should get the regulations in the right perspective. I suppose that most hon. Members of the Opposition present for the debate have been at sea possibly in the Royal Navy. Therefore, we are used to the conditions.

Mr. Skinner: Some have yachts.

Mr. Skeet: I dare say the hon. Member has a jolly good yacht at Bolsover.

Mr. Skinner: It is on the canal.

Mr. Skeet: It may be argued that we could share the conception of shore tribunals enjoyed by the fishing fleet. That may be possible if they are only going for a short run, but there could be practical difficulties because those vessels on the international runs would have to cross into the home zone and that would mean there being a double jurisdiction. We could have a double procedure unless that were specially provided for.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Skeet: No. I shall conclude my speech and give the hon. Member an opportunity of making his.
There is the other case, of a vessel on the home run which may extend far abroad and touch foreign ports. There would there be that difficulty of double jurisdiction. These are the practical difficulties which have to be considered. I can see the prospects of a general evolution of policy, but I cannot see that verdicts will be given by committees of the men, as they seem to have rejected these experiments. It is either the courts of the land or a tribunal set up by statute, or the master of the ship. The National Union of Seamen would say that it had found evidence of abuse by the master. It has not advanced it. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that while this method has the confidence of the people on our ships, it is reasonable that the system be maintained and continued.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Before turning to what in many ways is regarded as a duty but what to me will be a considerable pleasure, I want to deal with a point made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) just before he concluded his speech. I thought that he portrayed a terrible lack of knowledge, particularly in his last few remarks about the nature of the articles which seamen sign. Seamen sign articles. It is not a question of zones, in that way. People sign home trade articles, foreign articles or articles


going down to the Antipodes. That is the way it works. It is not on the nature of passing the machinery of international zones and lines and going from one jurisdiction to another.
What to me is a pleasure is congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on his speech. I had the good fortune to work very closely with him during the Labour Government's great reform, the Merchant Shipping Act 1970. We came together while I was dealing with the trawlermen's interests, and while he was dealing with the interests of the seamen. Because we had know each other before, it was a happy combination. It is even happier for me now to know that in the great wilderness and morass of the regulations dealing with seamen the voice of the seamen will be left in the hands of a man who, in the best traditions, is a sea lawyer. He will keep the House alive and awake to the problems facing British seamen.
I heard the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) speaking and I wondered what rôle the Opposition played when the Merchant Shipping Act was passing through the House. There were two great reforms connected with the sea during the period of the last Labour Government. The first was the Merchant Shipping Act, with its effect on seamen, and the second was the Fishing Vessels (Safety Regulations) Act, affecting members of my union. The Pearson Committee met following the seamen's strike of 1966, reported in 1967 and dealt with one of the largest and most complicated Acts on the statute book—the bible of people in the merchant navy. It had been in existence since 1894. Following the tragic loss of our trawlers the Labour Government set up the Holland-Martin Committee. The Committee reported. Within three years these two tremendous reforms were carried out.
When I hear the hon. and learned Member for Darwen calling in aid my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) I am appalled at his audacity. The 1970 Act was not perfect, but it represented a march forward to progress that any person would have been proud to have been

associated with, and it was a reform carried through by the Labour Government. Although the then Opposition did not particularly hinder it, in all the years that they were in office they did damn all to see that we got the reform and that task was left for a Labour Government to carry out.
Therefore, although some of us, including my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Shin-well, did not like some parts of the Bill, not one of us suggested that it was not a tremendous stride forward for seamen and trawlermen. I pay now the same high tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon, who were responsible for piloting the Bill through that I paid them when I was a virulent critic when we were in Government.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will not the hon. Member be a little more generous to Lord Pearson, on whose report the Bill was based and who was attacked from the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to Lord Pearson for what he did. He headed a committee which was appointed by the Labour Government. The Holland-Martin Report was a tremendous report for trawlermen, but its recommendations were implemented by the Labour Government. The people who sat on these committees were by no means infallible. We accepted many of their conclusions but we rejected many others. It is no criticism of their work to say that they, as honourable men, came to one conclusion and that we, as equally honourable men, I hope, found that conclusion unacceptable. It is important for us to realise, therefore, just what the Labour Government did.
One of the recommendations of Holland-Martin was in connection with hours worked by trawlermen. The report said the Government should seek powers to lay down statutory requirements and minimum rest periods on deep-sea trawlers.
The crews of distant water trawlers must receive minimum continuous rest periods on


the fishing grounds of at least six hours, followed by periods of duty of not more than twice the rest period, and except in emergency of not more than 16 hours.
Crews of most near and middle-water trawlers should receive at least six hours continuous rest after 24 hours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, we should be having that type of regulation before the House rather than the regulation we have before us now. These are important matters because although in Hull we have an industrial agreement which more or less covers the distant water fleet, such regulations do not exist for the near water and the middle water fleets and the owners have shown a marked reluctance to come to any such agreement.
These recommendations of the Holland-Martin Committee are of particular importance because they bear directly upon the research carried out by Professor Schilling, who was a member of the committee on the near and middle water fleets. In its report the committee envisaged that there should be industrial negotiations followed by statutory regulations. We have had the industrial negotiations for the deep water fleet but we have not yet had the statutory regulations. But if there is a reluctance on the part of the owners of fishing vessels in middle and near waters to meet reasonable requests about fixed hours of work for the men on these vessels, it is the Government's duty, if they cannot get agreement on both sides, to introduce statutory regulations for safety reasons. That should he the extent of the Government's interference, imposing safe working conditions and not fines.
It is particularly important that the Holland-Martin recommendations should not be ignored at a time when there is pressure throughout the industry—both the fishing industry and the merchant marine—for reducing the size of crews. If anything, extra men may be needed on the ships in order to meet these requirements. All this comes at a time when settlings are high and the price of fish is extremely high, so there is no excuse on the grounds of economy for failing to reach agreement.
The hon. Member for Bedford referred to these only being "small fines" and also to the fact that one of the fines was

reduced by 50 per cent. compared to the maximum laid down in the statute. It does not matter whether the fines are only 1¼4d. It is the principle of the matter which is at issue. It is wrong to behave in this way in industrial relations. The hon. and learned Member for Darvven, whom I regret is not in the Chamber, said that the status of a prisoner of war was an honourable one. Of course it is, and no one denies it but there are other aspects of the matter. First, it is not a very desirable state to be a prisoner of war. Secondly, the implication was that a ship had become a prisoner-of-war camp. Is that what we want for the British Merchant marine? The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) said that it was an insult to past generations to suggest that some of the conditions in which the men worked were wrong. Would he like a recruiting poster which said "Join the great traditions of the Royal Navy: keelhauling, hanging at the yard-arm and flogging". That is the logic of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument. I am sure that was not what he wanted.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misquote me. This is a serious subject, which he and I have very much at heart. What I said was not in any way what he represented. I said that it was an insult to past generations and to present-day seamen to say that the discipline and violence that they subjected themselves to, and the bravery they have shown, was not necessary. In fact, it was.

Mr. McNamara: The way that discipline was maintained in the past, as I understand it, was by the cat-of-nine-tails. I believe that earlier than that it was a question of throwing a man overboard. Be that as it may, it is not insulting them to say that at present we are trying to run our country in a more civilised manner.
The hon. Member for Bedford said that Norway had a piffling little fleet. In fact, it is one of the largest fleets in the world.

Mr. Skeet: It is a flag of convenience. I was talking about trade. Owners can register under the Norwegian flag as they can with Liberia and elsewhere.

Mr. McNamara: Whether it is a flag of convenience or not—and the hon. Gentleman's Government at the moment should not be talking about flags of convenience, having chartered a Liberian tug to patrol the Icelandic coast—the Norwegian legislation applies to the conditions of the men on the ships. It is Norwegian legislation, which is going away from the whole point of having a severe disciplinary system based upon sanctions of a monetary nature.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen raised the point about disciplinary committees and the failure that they represent. Let us make it quite clear that there were 12 disciplinary committees—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Darwen has just reentered the Chamber. I remind him that he said the committees were a failure. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that they were introduced as a sort of compromise to see if while working the Act and the penal clauses it might be possible to build up a system whereby it would he possible to move away from them.
There were 12 disciplinary committees set up on the different types of vessels—for example, tankers, liners and other vessels. They did not succeed. In some places the men did not want them. Hon. Members will recall some of the arguments put forward at the time. While a disciplinary committee existed on a ship, at the same time, and running parallel to it, another type of legislation existed. A difficulty was bound to arise because in other industries that system did not exist.
The hon. Member for Bedford said. "The captains can remit the fine." I object to the idea of seamen being treated like schoolboys. They get three good conduct marks and three black marks so their account is all right. However, if they have a few more black marks than good marks, they have to go round lickspittling to try to ingratiate themselves with officers in order to get their money back. That is denying a man his dignity. It is also an insult to the rest of the crew who, by the nature of their conduct, have not incurred the loss. Therefore, if the man gets his money back, they should be paid a bonus. That is the logic of the argument.
The important point is that it is not accurate to say that a man gets his money back and that is an end of the matter. If he is logged it will be reported when he gets ashore and he may be dealt with by the federation committees. Therefore, if he is logged, he can lose money, and can be dealt with when he gets ashore for the same offence, if it is a federation matter, and, if it is a serious matter, he can be dealt with before the criminal courts. There are three systems of courts. I know that that may be the situation in Northern Ireland, and I do not approve of it there. We should not have three systems of law applying to the British merchant marine. However, that is what is happening and that is what this type of legislation means.
It was suggested that somehow or other my hon. Friends and I are in favour of indiscipline on ships—that we are in favour of reckless, careless and foolish behaviour. However, seamen are very aware of the dangers that exist in their lives. If a person commits a criminal offence he should be charged and, if necessary, flown home. If a person is being a bit awkward, why cannot he be flown home and put before a committee? Of course, that can be done. In fact, in the fishing industry that is what happens. If a man offends against the code he goes before the disciplinary committee.
In some ways I think that the men would like the old system back again when they were fined by the skipper, particularly if the skipper was fair. If they go before a tribunal they know that they run the risk of being kept ashore for a time. They run the risk of losing their union card or their ticket. That is a far more powerful sanction than a person being able to say, "Oh, well, it will only cost two quid"—to use the words of the hon. Gentleman. If they appear before a tribunal it is their livelihood that is at stake. That is why it is better to be judged by one's peers.

Mr. David James: The hon. Gentleman is talking about conditions in the fishing industry, where everyone goes back to the same home port. However, in some fleets the crews live hundreds of miles away from each other and they return to different places.

Mr. McNamara: Perhaps I am being over-generous to the merchant marine, because conditions in the fishing industry are a damn sight harder. Fishing vessels going out of Hull put in at Canada, Norway, the Faroes and other places. These are touching on foreign ports. Flying crews out is an increasing practice. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that because of the difficulties of recruiting, not only key men, like radar officers or certificated officers, but also members of the crew are flown to vessels, if this is part and parcel of the crew agreements in the merchant navy?
I get the feeling after listening to some of the arguments put forward by the Government that they still think we are going round Cape Horn in clippers. We have tried on this side of the House to show how illogical and irrational it is to try to put up a case in defence of the regulations. We know that the Government are fair because they introduced the Industrial Relations Act. They told us that it was being done to help the unions. They could be a very fair Government. Of course, people cannot go on strike for an increase in wages, but it is a fair Government. However, the Government should take these regulations back and ask themselves if there is not a better way of regulating our lives and the lives of our seamen than imposing these silly conditions, which produce the stupid anomaly which has now resulted in the men of my union and the National Union of Public Employees being locked out on the River Thames on the question of emptying the sludge boats.
I am particularly concerned about that because my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster were at great pains throughout the passage of the Act to say that the regulations would not be introduced without consultations with representatives of the men. They leant over backwards to say that everyone concerned would be consulted. That is how it should be. That is what open government is about. The Prime Minister talks about it, but he does not understand it.
The most important part of the Act containing that provision is Section 99(2), which says:

Before making regulations under any provision of this Act other than sections 84 and 90 the Board of Trade shall consult with organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to them representative of masters and seamen who will be affected by the regulations and of persons employing such masters and seamen.
But my union—the Transport and General Workers Union—which organises the sludgeboat men, was never consulted about the contents of the regulations applying to them. No doubt the Department thought, "The T & G covers fishermen. We shall consult it about them. We shall not consult it where the regulations affect the owners about questions of hours."

Mr. Onslow: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to be unfair. But could he remind the House whether at any time during the passage of the Act it was suggested that it would be appropriate to consult the Transport and General Workers Union in this case, or whether there was mention of the vessels in Committee?

Mr. McNamara: As far as I recall, the case was not mentioned in Committee, but I should have thought that the Department in its wisdom would have some knowledge of the organisations representing seamen. The National Union of Railwaymen represents seamen, as do the General and Municipal Workers Union and the National Union of Public Employees. The Post Office employs seamen. It was important that the Department should follow the procedures laid down and look most carefully at what was happening.
I do not want to go into all the details of the dispute and the serious effect it has had on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved). My hon. Friend made legitimate points on behalf of his constituents, perhaps not forcefully enough.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am listening to everything my hon. Friend says with great interest. Perhaps I may refer to his previous point about consultation and incidentally enlighten the Minister on what we intended in the Act. I believe that the phrase I used more than once in Committee was that consultation should he extensive and exhaustive. That


was intended to convey, in response to the various debates on the point, that not just a single union that might be deemed to be representative of an industry was to be consulted, but rather that every aspect of representation should be brought into the consultation, which, I repeat, would need to be extensive and exhaustive.

Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. I was trying to make the point that he leant over backwards to ensure that everyone in-solved was consulted.
The sludgeboat dispute need never have happened. I understand that in September and October of 1970 there were difficulties relating to a certificated officer, and a formal inquiry into his conduct was held. It went on for 10 days. As a result of the inquiry he was posted to another vessel.
Following that, a general discussion took place between the GLC and the unions about what procedure should govern staff relations. The GLC suggested that the best system to adopt would be its staff code. That having been agreed, the matter was more or less left there. The crew signed what they termed barge articles, but knew that their conduct would be governed by the staff regulations of the GLC.
Out of the blue the GLC presented the members of the unions on the vessels with completely new agreements, but the articles it originally set the crews to sign were the articles which went out of date on 1st January this year. It suddenly realised its mistake and produced a second set of articles containing all the provisions of which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has spoken, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford has set out. That was done without discussion with the Department, without any consultation by the GLC, which one would expect the GLC to have initiated in its rôle as a good employer.
The men refused to sign, whereupon the GLC locked them out, again without any discussions. The GLC went one step further. When there had been disputes in the past the men had put skeleton crews on the ships to look after the moorings, with the rise and fall of the tide.

This time, even those crews were locked out and were not allowed to do that necessary safety work. Other people were brought in.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford has argued powerfully why the vessels should not be regarded as seagoing. I believe that regarding them as other than seagoing could be done under the terms of the Act, but if that is not possible the problem must be examined more carefully. It would be far easier if the GLC created a climate in which the men went back to work while the point was being decided. It could do that by making the gesture of saying, "The men will return to attend to the moorings, and then talks can start. If the argument about seagoing vessels falls and the ships are deemed to be sea-goings vessels, we shall say that, even if the articles apply in the strict legal interpretation, as a matter of policy and good industrial relations we shall use our staff code in our relations with members of the crews of these vessels. On top of that, we shall instruct the certificated officers of the vessels that it is our policy to use the code, and that therefore in their treatment of the men they will use that code of staff relationships."
There is nothing to prevent any employer saying, "We do not seek the protection of the Act to maintain good industrial relations." It is not mandatory upon them to use all the provisions of the Act. There would be no dispute if the GLC said that the problem was becoming serious, that it would let the men go back to the moorings and then see whether it could work out a solution as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford, and that if it could achieve that it would nevertheless give an undertaking that its relationship with the crews of its sludge vessels would be based on the staff code, and that instructions to that effect would be given to its captains and certificated officers.
The whole dispute has arisen purely and simply because someone got a set of regulations, said, "My God! They apply to us", and never thought what a small group of men in a vital part of the workings of the GLC might think about the matter.
I know that my union members and the members of NUPE would like the issue


to be resolved, if for no other reason than that they do not like losing money. But they want it to be resolved properly and with dignity to all concerned. A statement by the GLC that it would return to working under the staff code would solve the problem. The whole issue could be resolved, and there would be no danger to my hon. Friend's constituency.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. David James: Having spent a few years in my youth as a deckhand on a trawler I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that of all forms of seafaring in which I have engaged trawling has the longest hours of service. I should like them to be substantially ameliorated hut, unlike men engaged in deep water trading—which is the primary discussion in this debate—those on trawlers come back to the same base and their crews are members of the same community. Therefore there are not the same sort of considerations as those which arise as to whether or not one has ad hoc justice when in Sydney or Valparaiso, when one can deal with the entire matter on returning home.
I am sorry that he is not present now in the Chamber, but I wish to apologise to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), because I was not present to hear his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. I thought that this debate would begin at seven o'clock, and when I came into the House he had already finished what I understand was a very thoughtful speech. I am sorry that I missed it. I did, however, come in in time to hear the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) who was rather running down others who might have contributed to this debate—an admiral silting behind me and some trawler owners round the corner, and a naval officer. Then, one would have thought, one would have listened to the authentic voice of the seadog. I wish to state my claim to knowledge of this subject. I did not spend a year as a steward on a merchant liner but I was for nearly a year a deckie on a four-masted barque, and although sail is now outdated I think it is the best way of keeping in touch with life at sea.

Mr. Marsden: I am not a seaman but I am always conscious that when seamen

talk to me they appear to think that discipline on sea vessels is unique, and that therefore they must have unique rules and regulations. Allow me to tell the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) that discipline in a coalmine is unique, and we do not need all these regulations to which seamen are subject.

Mr. James: I am most grateful to the hon. Member. Next time there is a debate on mining I shall be grateful if he will give me a brief. Then I shall be able to follow him. Discipline on board ship is substantially self imposed by a small community, and if there is need for internal sanctions as there is in coal mining it is because they are essential to the safety of the ship, the success of the voyage and, if they are carried, to the wellbeing of the passengers. I consider that my year of sail gives me as much right to take part in this debate as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. On the basis of that experience I consider that the regulations before the House are the minimum necessary for a ship's master to have as his reserve power. The master must have a reserve power because in the last resort everything depends on him.
There was another, a penultimate stage, to my nautical career, which was very different. That was when I was a prisoner of war in Germany in 1943 and 1944. There were two compounds the Naval and the Merchant Service. In Marlag there was never any serious disciplinary problems, because even though we were prisoners of war we were subject to the Naval Discipline Act, and KR and AIs still ran, even though we were in the middle of Germany. In the last resort the senior British officer could make life unpleasant.
It was different in the other camp, where there was a vast aglomeration, including Chinese stewards, and so on. They had great difficulty, simply because the senior officer in that camp did not, in the last resort—we are talking about weapons of last resort—have any force on which he could rely. In the event that camp worked superbly well. That was probably because the man in charge—a Captain Nottman—was with that community of 5,000 people throughout the war and he controlled it through force of


personality. He had no power at his elbow.
I do not think that when looking to the future of the Merchant Service we are entitled to assume that every merchant ship at sea can produce a charismatic character of that kind without some reserve power. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, whom I must admit I admire enormously, was too scathing about lawyers and others. I am sorry that he is not present now. I thought he was the most effective fo'c'sle lawyer, but the way he managed to make a debate on deep water seamanship hang on a constituency point about disposal of sludge was amazing.

Mr. McNamara: Does not the hon. Member realise that the content of these regulations forms the cause of the strike and the point we are trying to make is that men will not accept this sort of treatment?

Mr. James: Of course I am perfectly prepared to accept that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford was making a very legitimate constituency point, but that is not the kernel of this debate which is dealing with deep water ships which get into trouble overseas as happened to the "Ocean Monarch" in Sydney a few days ago owing to lack of discipline which is prevalent in the merchant service. These regulations strike me as being the irreducable minimum which anyone in command of a merchant ship is entitled to expect if he is to do his job properly. I go further, and contend that this is entirely in line with the Pearson Report, although the Pearson Report recommendations have been watered down a good deal in the interests of reaching agreement. It is also entirely in line with the 1970 Act, which was enacted by the Government of hon. Members opposite. I am particularly aware of the fact that the right hon. Member for Caernarvon, in summing up this Act and dealing with this very point said that he thought
there was no serious disability on the seamen involved".
I will not become involved in specific points as to what Pearson said in which paragraph because I was not in the House then. I will not recap all the debates on the 1970 Act, for the same reason. I rest my case on the broad

proposition that as someone who was 10 years at sea and who has served in almost every type of craft from a four-masted barque to an Antarctic icebreaker I say that what is proposed here is the minimum reasonable standard necessary to maintain discipline at sea.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In a sense I feel somewhat out of this debate because so many hon. Members have declared that they were seamen. I cannot claim ever to have been away at sea. My closest connection with shipping is that for many years I worked in shipyards and helped to make ships. My constituency probably has as many seamen in it as any other in the country. As a result my connection with seamen has been very close. In addition, on two occasions I was President of the Liverpool Trades Council to which the National Union of Seamen is affiliated—or was before the Industrial Relations Act. I am not certain what has happened since that unfortunate event.
I took part in the proceedings on the 1970 Act, during Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I remember that during Second Reading a powerful and passionate speech was made by the right hon. Mr. Emmanuel Shinwell, as he was then. He had always had the closest connection with the sea. He once organised the seamen's union. He pointed out that the power of the master to discipline or supposedly discipline seamen for matters in no way connected with the safety of a ship was one of the greatest problems for the seafaring community. He said it caused more problems and resentment than anything else. The greatest cause of industrial travail was the power of the master given through the 1894 Act.
I remember his speech well. I sat about two places from him. It was a magnificent speech. He was appealing to our Government, because although he and I and other of my hon. Friends were delighted with the 1970 Act there were nevertheless parts of it which, although modified, continued the provisions of the 1894 Act. He said that these ought to be eliminated. I agreed.
I remember that during the course of my speech I quoted what Bill Hogarth, the General Secretary of the National


Union of Seamen, had written at the time. For the benefit of those hon. Members who were not in the House then and who may not have refreshed their memories I will quote what Bill Hogarth said. He said:
Unfortunately, the Bill reflects the belief that fines are still a necessary deterrent to indiscipline. Therefore, it proposes that the authority of the master to impose them shall be retained. This is enough to cause dismay.
… There is no evidence that monetary punishment prevents indiscipline, neither is there any evidence that good order on board ship would collapse in its absence. We have always felt that the facility with which fining may be carried out offers a convenient shield behind which inept shipboard supervision may safely shelter. In our view there is adequate machinery at the disposal of all interested parties with which to deal with industrial indiscipline. Consequently, the authority to fine is both unnecessary and redundant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December 1969; Vol. 792, c. 1399–400.]
That was the view of the General Secretary of the National Union of Seamen at that time. It is the view of the National Union of Seamen today. They take precisely the same point of view after the Act has been in operation for a period of two years.

Mr. David James: It seemed to me that a bit earlier the hon. Gentleman was developing the argument that there were some people aboard ship upon whom the safety of the vessel depended and other people of whom this was not true. I wonder whether he can justify that distinction. Surely, if the butcher's boy gets drunk and goes after the watch with a knife, that imperils the ship; and if a stewardess makes eyes at the wireless operator the same applies. I do not see how we can have two standards of behaviour on a ship.

Mr. Heffer: There are two standards only in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I never suggested anything of the sort. I never said there was a question of one sort of discipline in the interest of safety at sea and another for something else. I was pointing out that, as regards the provisions on safety, during the course of the Bill there were feelings that the penalties were extremely high and that we ought to have another look at them. In fact, this was the whole point. We were given assurances by the Government, by my hon.

Friend, that after two years, I think it was, these penal clauses would be reviewed, and it was not those we were arguing about too much at that time.
I shall be slightly facetious, perhaps, because I want to have a look at the actual disciplinary offences. We are not talking about each individual ship. We are, apparently, the ship of State, the Parliament. We are guiding the British people as the ship of State. Let us look at us as representing the ship of State and then have a look at the disciplinary offences as they might apply to us.
It is a punishable offence "wilfully to strike any person". Quite right, but Lord Shinwell once stepped across this Floor and belted an hon. Gentleman on that side of the House. Recently there was an occasion on which a young lady sitting in our midst, an hon. Member of this House, jumped up and, without doing very much harm, made some sort of a striking movement in relation to the then Home Secretary. She did not go to the Tower. Nobody fined her. Perhaps we all deplored the offence but we showed a bit of common sense.
It is a disciplinary offence
wilfully to disobey a lawful command".
Members of the House disobey so-called lawful commands every day, or try to, then make a brief apology and we all forget about it.
Next there is,
without reasonable cause to fail to be available for duty …
Where are hon. Members? They get paid more than any seaman. That is the duty of hon. Members of this House to be here.
Next we read,
while on duty, to be asleep at his place of duty".
With all due respect, I have seen certain hon. Members having a good snore in this House. One usually wakes them up and says, "They are all looking at you". My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. John Prescott) was not being silly about this when he pointed out that, if people with certain duties on a ship were asleep, of course it would be very dangerous, but a steward who is supposed to make a cup of tea or coffee is not committing a terribly serious


offence if he is asleep when a bell is rung. But he can still be fined. He can still be severely disciplined as a result.
Then it is an offence
to be under the influence of drink …
But perhaps I had better not say any more than that. Let us look at these things realistically. If it applied to this House, hon. Members would be fined every other day—every day perhaps. I said that I was being facetious but if we applied these disciplinary offences to the ship of State, the discipline which goes on here would be scandalous. We have to be realistic.
During the passage of the Merchant Shipping Act, we recognised, of course, that the safety of the ship was all-important. Who recognises that more than the seamen? It is his safety which is involved. He knows that very well and understands it. He does not need someone in this House to tell him. That is why it is about time that these disciplinary offences and fines by a master were thrown out.
The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) used the simile of the prisoner-of-war camp. Is that the way hon. Members opposite regard a ship's crew—as prisoners of war? The seamen are not prisoners of war. I have never been a prisoner but I can well imagine that discipline in a prisoner-of-war camp is terribly important. But these seamen are our constituents, who come home to their wives and families. They are civilians—ordinary, decent people doing a job on behalf of the British people. It is terrible that one should even think of them in such terms.

Mr. David James: The analogy lay in the fact that here we have an isolated community thrown back on its own resources, possibly for a very long time.

Mr. Heffer: I still do not think that one can compare the case of prisoners of war with a ship's crew. The hon. Gentleman may have been an officer in the Royal Navy. He may well have been a deck hand for a time. But I have had experience of the shipping industry for many years and I recall the various disputes. In the 1947 dispute one or two friends of mine were put in prison in Liverpool

because they were leading the unofficial action. In the 1960 dispute, I was, believe it or not, a mediator and helped bring it to an end. Then came the 1966 dispute.
Whatever dispute the seamen have had, whatever the arguments they have put, whether on wages or conditions, always one of their demands has been the ending of the penal clauses and particularly of the disciplinary powers of the master. That will continue to be the demand whatever disputes the seamen may have in future as long as these powers exist. They are unnecessary, they cause difficulties and they do not help to achieve genuine discipline at sea.
I am not saying anything now different from what I told the Labour Government. But at least the Labour Government were prepared to take a look at the situation and they went a long way towards meeting the points we raised. Now I am asking the present Government to look at the situation, to follow our advice and to withdraw these regulations.

8.45 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am glad that the House is debating the Merchant Navy tonight because it is vital to our national life. That goes without saying and I feel that not enough heed is paid to it in our transactions in this House. I must say the Minister has my sympathy to a certain extent tonight since he is under considerable fire from the benches opposite. I shall also object to these regulations and shall give them a whiff of grapeshot from here but for reasons very different from those which have been deployed from the benches opposite.
In short, I believe that these regulations diminish the disciplinary code in Merchant Navy ships to an extent which will be to the detriment of the Merchant Navy as a whole and in particular to seamen themselves. Before detailing my objections to these regulations, let me scotch the idea, which I can almost see as a gleam in the eye of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and others, that, having served in the Royal Navy, one has not had an opportunity to gain detailed knowledge of the life of a merchant seaman. The prime task of the Royal Navy through the ages has always


been to protect our overseas trade, and any right-minded merchant seamen who has served at sea in war time will recognise and admit to an understanding of this. So will hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite except when they are having a party political field day as they are tonight. We quite understand that. We all have these little scampers from time to time.
With regard to Regulation 1294, the fines suggested are, in my submission, ludicrously small. I say that because these days, thank heavens, seamen are on very good wages. I believe that it diminishes the authority of the master if he has such absolutely minimal powers to inflict any kind of meaningful fine on anybody who has transgressed.
Incidentally, on quite an important point and one on which I may have some agreement from hon. Members opposite, I believe that it is storing up trouble for the future to put just a monetary sum like £2 or £5. I believe the amount should be in multiples of a day's pay. Then the regulations would not become increasingly out of date as inflation, which apparently is inevitable, goes ahead so that what may be a touch on the pocket now may in years ahead become increasingly trivial and small. I should like to see the regulations, and indeed all legislation—for this is a wide point—provide and regulate fines in multiples of a day's pay.
Let us move to the offences to which these fines, which in my submission are too small, are applicable. Anybody with knowledge of sea-going life knows that the offences in paragraph 3 of this order can be very serious in conditions at sea. If offences of this kind go unchecked they make for an unhappy ship, very much to the detriment of the seamen we want to benefit under these regulations. Experienced seamen understand this and understand how important it is for the master to have reasonable disciplinary powers, for example, to deal with the "stroppy" young man on his first voyage who kicks over the traces, making life difficult on board for everybody, which makes for a bad atmosphere in the ship.
I am bound to recall also that the right hon Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) said in the transactions

of Standing Committee A, on which we both sat,
I think that there is no serious disability on the seamen involved."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd January 1970; c. 187.]
To sum up, I believe that anything which diminishes the status of the master is bad for all who live and work in ships. I hope the House will bear with me for a moment if I speak with some emotion in recalling some masters of merchant ships I have known. The shortest way is to quote from a speech that I made in Standing Committee A recalling an incident when, during the war, I was on a merchant ship in a convoy under fire. I said,
Then we heard gunfire, and we knew that the 'Hipper' was among the convoy.
I was on the bridge, keeping watch with the Merchant Service officer of the watch. When we realised the threat to the convoy all eyes turned—to whom? To the master a large, bulky, comfortable, confident oil-skinned figure peering over the bridge rail, huddled in the lee of the wheelhouse. He quietly extricated the ship from the convoy. He determined the short-term course to steer. He subsequently worked out the route to Gibraltar, and he got us there safely. That, shortly, is the sort of men the masters of the Merchant Navy are, and it is wrong in any way to diminish their authority.
I do not think that any experienced seaman will wish to see the master's authority diminished."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 10th February 1970; c. 410.]

Mr. Wellbeloved: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that when the master gave his orders not one man hesitated, but immediately carried out those orders, without the need for recourse to regulations? Does not he agree that that happened on that occasion and on many others, and that the history of the Navy shows that both merchant and naval seamen carry out their duties with speed and efficiency in the face of the enemy and despite the hazards of war?

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I agree with every word uttered by the hon. Gentleman. He knows as well as I do that that is so.
I turn to Statutory Instrument No. 1700. The restriction of £50 in Regulation 6 is absurdly weighted against the owners. It would permit any young man to sign on in a cruise ship for a voyage to Australia, have a nice cruise there, then cut up rough, scull around for two


or three weeks, and for the price of a couple of weeks' wages have a free ride home by air.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that the Pearson Report said in paragraph 302 that
there ought to be a statutory provision allowing damages for any breach by the seaman of his contractual obligations under the articles of agreement to be set off against wages due to him.
The Pearson Committee recommended a £100 limit so that there would not be an open-ended commitment for the seaman, but in the negotiations the NUS opposed that and suggested £50. The regulation says £50, which in my submission is too small, and now, if I understand hon. Gentlemen opposite aright, they object even to the principle of any amount.
We are speaking about detailed regulations, but let us remember—and this was the point made by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved)—that discipline in ships depends on the personality and character of the master. In practice, regulations are rarely used—that was the point made by the hon. Gentleman—and it is wrong for hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest—as, I am sorry to say, some have—even by implication that the average master is a kind of Captain Bligh.
I have paid tribute to masters. I pay tribute also to the skill and wisdom of the officers on merchant ships and to the seamen of all branches. The vast majority of seamen are patient, responsible and good-hearted men. They give good service for, nowadays—and thank goodness for this—very good wages. Their conditions are vastly improved from what they were years ago. About 99 per cent. of seamen serve day and night in all parts of the world and in all weathers, with quiet and disciplined efficiency. The highest praise I can give to them is that they do so despite such flagrant militancy as was contained in the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber to hear me say that. I shall write and tell him that I have made that remark. If the hon. Gentleman had at heart the good of seamen, I am sure he would on reflection drastically alter the tone and content of

what he said. Sensible seamen—that is to say, 99 per cent. of them—will not agree with him.
The welfare of the British Merchant Navy on which our survival as a country depends must surely be discussed in an objective and reasonable way, and I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember that.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on the speech with which he opened the debate. He did the House a signal service in disabusing anyone who had the notion that the Merchant Shipping Regulations were uncontroversial of that false idea. I hope the Government will take note of this, because they have seen fit to delay the debate on these regulations until well after they came into force and have deprived the House of the opportunity of debating them at a time when hon. Members could have influenced their form.
Understandably, considerable attention has been paid to Statutory Instrument No. 1294 which deals with discipline. The main justification for the Instrument put forward by those who support it is that the ship is a unique workplace and must, therefore, continue to have a unique disciplinary system. I do not dispute the contention that the ship is a unique workplace any more than I would dispute the contention, if it were made, that a nuclear power station is a unique workplace. That is not the argument. The argument is whether the unique form of workplace that is a ship justifies someone in administration within it having a power to judge whether an offence has been committed and to exact a fine which he can deduct from a man's pay. A comparable argument would be whether a foreman of a nuclear power station should have a right to deduct a fine from a man's wages because he had infringed the safety regulations.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said that it has always been so, that there has always been this unique system of discipline at sea. Bearing that in mind, we can usefully remember that there was a time when in civil shore employment it was possible for employers to fine their


employees and make all sorts of deductions from their pay. That is no longer so. With the technological, social and political developments that occur within a modern society there must come a time when we challenge ideas that have always been so. If we had not done that, we should not be building the sort of ships on which men are sailing today. We should be building Noah's Arks or Cutty Sarks. In all other areas we have accepted to need to change.
If we are to be objective in examining the question whether the unique form of workshop that is a ship should have a unique system of discipline, we have to consider how far the things that affect this system have changed. Several things have changed.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The uniqueness has not changed. A ship, unlike a nuclear power station, is outside the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. Nothing has changed to bring a ship within that jurisdiction.

Mr. Booth: I was about to deal with that point. The fact that it is outside the jurisdiction of the courts does not make it unique. An aircraft flying over the Atlantic is to the same extent outside the jurisdiction of the courts, but the captain of an aircraft does not have power to fine a stewardess.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is not the difference that an aircraft will be back at base within a few hours, whereas a ship may be away for weeks? If an alteration takes place on board a ship, the seamen will want the matter to be cleared up quickly rather than that it should be left as a festering sore.

Mr. Booth: Seamen are often away for a long time, but in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) those vessels were not away from their base for as long as are the crews of some aircraft. Therefore, we must be prepared to look at this matter again.
One of the arguments advanced when the Merchant Shipping Bill was in Committee was that an enabling Act would allow regulations to be more flexible to take account of changes, such as shorter voyages, specialised ships, improved communications and so on. But this is the very point of which the Minister has so

lamentably failed to take account. Had he taken advantage of the flexibility provided in the Act, he could have avoided the whole problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford. We see in Regulation 2 of Statutory Instrument No. 1294, on the subject of disciplinary offences the areas in which the regulations shall apply. They will not apply to a pleasure yacht, a ship belonging to a general lighthouse authority, a ship of less than 200 tons engaged solely on coastal voyages, or men on ship solely in connection with the construction, alteration, repair or testing of a ship, and so on. Nothing in the Act stops the Minister from including in that list a sludge vessel owned by the GLC. It was right for my hon. Friend to raise this matter because it shows the advantage of these provisions being used in a flexible manner and in such a way as to take proper account of the views of seamen and the nature of the vessels involved.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Is not the situation even more serious because of the fact that the Secretary of State violated the law in not carrying out the requirements of Section 99? That section concerns consultation and if there had been consultation the right hon. Gentleman would have known all about the problems of these vessels and would have appreciated the force of what my hon. Friend suggested. By ignoring the law he has lost the opportunity of doing what the Act provides.

Mr. Booth: I fully accept my hon. Friend's point and I shall develop it a little later. The simple position is that the Government have no monopoly of concern for the safety of ships. On the question of safety of vessels, the members and officers of the National Union of Seamen are very conscious of the importance of the way in which seamen behave. If a seaman is judged by his fellow seamen on a charge of jeopardising the safety of the vessel, he will be tried most rigorously. All the conditions existed for an industrial agreement to be reached between the federation and the NUS which could have been reflected in these regulations.
I turn now to the regulations affecting crew agreements. As I read the Act and the regulations, crew agreements


which have been made and which apply as from 1st January 1973 require the approval of the Department of Trade and Industry. But how has the Minister gone about examining these crew agreements which require his approval? What criteria has he used to determine which agreements are acceptable and which are not? Presumably he has had to delegate authority to his officials to do this. What guidance has he given those officials? Has he for example given them any guidance about whether [hey should permit to be included in crew agreements matters which are covered by the disciplinary regulations?
If he has allowed such matters to be included in crew agreements, has he allowed them to be included in a form permitting the master to choose whether to apply the provisions relating to crew agreements or the disciplinary regulations—or has he suggested another way in which this should be done? If there is a choice to be made about whether a breach of the disciplinary regulations should be the charge or whether it should be a breach of the crew agreement, there should be clear guide lines as to how the choice should be made and in what circumstances the respective charges should be invoked.
I deal now with seamen who are left behind abroad. This again is a matter covered by regulations. However, they fail to distinguish between the various reasons why men are left behind abroad from merchant ships. The regulations make no distinction between the man who falls sick in a foreign port while away from his ship, the man who has an accident or the man who deliberately jumps ship. They only make a distinction in respect of a man who is shipwrecked. Such a case is covered by Statutory Instrument No. 1805.
Subject to the man who has deliberately jumped ship reporting to an agent of his company within a three month limit—presumably back in the port—under these regulations the company has the same liability to him as it has to the man who falls sick or the man who has an accident when in port. This is a somewhat surprising situation. Clearly the intention of the Act is that the general liability for returning a man home should

lie with the shipping company employing him, unlike the old Board of Trade responsibilities, although it continues to make provision for conveyance orders to be obtained from consuls and for other ships to carry the man home at limited charges. However it creates a situation in which for the first time the owner of the vessel can deduct £50 from the man's wages. He does not have to apply to the Board of Trade for any authority as to the way in which he carries the man home such as that which existed under the law prior to 1st January of this year.
Is it the Minister's interpretation of the Act that an owner who brings a man home in circumstances in which the owner considers it was the man's fault that he was left behind can, after deducting £50 from the man's outstanding wages, then go to the courts for another £50? The sum laid down in the Act for the maximum which can be covered by regulations is £100. The amount prescribed in these regulations is £50. It is the understanding of the Merchant Shipping Federation that an owner can take a seaman to court claiming up to another £50 if £100 or more has been spent on bringing the man home.
This is highly unsatisfactory, particularly as it fails to draw any distinction between the reasons for a man being left behind in a foreign port. If we accept the general proposition of the Act, which we must because we are not debating the original Act, that it is the responsibility of the industry to get a man home, we should not allow any punishment other than that which is clearly laid down within the regulations and the Act.
In this connection, I should like to know why the regulations do not require a man to be returned to his home. I believe the ship owner is given the option to return a man to his home or to the merchant navy establishment office at which he registered. We should bear in mind the conditions in which some of these men might return. They might arrive in this country with very little money in their pockets, be delivered to the merchant navy establishment office at which they registered, and then have to find their own way home. The merchant navy establishment office might be in London, but their homes might be in Aberdeen, Edinburgh or John o'Groats.


The regulations fail to meet this situation. I hope that the Minister will give us some advice on this matter.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford pointed out in his intervention, the Minister is required by the Act to consult certain bodies before making regulations. Section 99(2) provides:
Before making regulations under any provision of this Act other than sections 84 and 90 the Board of Trade shall consult with organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to them representative of masters and seamen who will be affected by the regulations and of persons employing such masters and seamen.
Why was not the Transport and General Workers' Union consulted when its members were clearly being brought within the scope of these regulations?
Finally, I protest most strongly at the circumstances in which we are having to conduct this debate. Hon. Members who have sought to scrutinise these regulations, which came into effect on 1st January 1973, and properly wish them to be subject to parliamentary control, have been thwarted by the Government. The procedure being used is novel in that we have regulations supplanting what were detailed provisions of primary legislation. It has therefore been necessary for the Government to introduce a commencement order which has certain repeal provisions. The result is that if we carry any of our Prayers tonight there could be a serious vacuum in the law. We cannot revoke the commencement order with its repeal provisions. Therefore, the previous merchant shipping legislation on these matters will be taken off the Statute Book, but there will be no regulation and no delegated legislation to take its place.
The Government could not have been unaware of this position. They certainly could not have been unaware of it since July last when a Select Committee of this House wrote to the then Leader of the House drawing this problem to his attention and suggesting that a one-day debate should take place on all the regulations well in advance of the commencement order with its repeal provisions so that any decisions of the House may properly be reflected in the final regulations and the commencement order. This was not done. The Government have delayed the debate until we have this serious limitation imposed upon us.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends to join me in dividing the House against two of these orders not only because we believe them to be wrong, but in protest against a most unreasonable and intolerable restriction which has been put upon us in trying to carry out our duty to the merchant seamen of this country.

9.14 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow): I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take note of the general and particular comments made by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). I do not accept that he is absolutely correct in placing the blame fairly and squarely on the Government, although I understand the impulse to do so. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would have liked to be able to give time for an earlier debate on the subjects we have been discussing if that had been possible. I understand that there were some discussions through the usual channels but that no mutually convenient earlier opportunity presented itself. All that I can come to the House with, perhaps, is the reflection that owing to this situation we have the unusual advantage of discussing, at a much earlier hour than usual, and perhaps at greater length than we would otherwise have, matters which we could only have prayed against rather later in the evening. Hon. Members can draw some small comfort from that. As I have said, my right hon. Friend will note what has been said.
In starting my remarks I had it in mind to welcome the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), on his maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box, but I understand that this is his second and not his first experience. If that is so, I cannot understand why I did not hear him on his first appearance, because the Department of Trade and Industry is only 500 yards away and I am sure that his voice would have carried there. He certainly brings a new breeze to our debates on this subject. I am sure that as time passes we shall all become less excitable. I look forward with interest to debating with him a number of the matters he has outlined.
I say that with all the more confidence because I can tell the hon. Member and the House that the present Government


do not intend to let the matter of merchant shipping regulations lie fallow. We are proceeding as fast as is possible within the limits of human availability, on the departmental side and, indeed, on the side of the other parties concerned, with the implementation of the other requirements of the fresh legislation which, after all, was a fairly massive piece of law making, as the hon. Member has conceded, and it would be ambitious to think that the whole thing would be swept up in the briefest of periods.
The codes of safe practice for seamen and fishermen were published by my Department in 1970. They were to be reviewed after a trial period of three years. It is therefore our intention to carry out such a review this year and, in the light of the review, to consult the industry on the regulations under Section 19 of the Act. Discussions with the industry are in train in the making of manning regulations under Section 43 and regulations on medical stores under Section 24. Work is well advanced in drawing them up.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), although no longer in the Chamber, would like to know that work is in hand on the provisions relating to hours of work in the fishing industry, and that it is our intention to start a review of the penal clauses in the Act this year. So I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that represents a considerable earnest of interest in this matter. I do not seek to claim a monopoly of that. I believe that all hon. Members have an interest—which is not always partisan or keenly contentious—to advance the interests of people who carry on professions in dangerous and difficult circumstances. Perhaps we can proceed on that basis, at least until there comes cause to fall out.
Coming now to the specific matters, I thought that I caught a sort of echo of distant gunfire—a feeling that the battle had been progressing a little for some time before I arrived perhaps since King Alfred's time, or whenever it was that men first went to sea. It may be that some of the arguments which I advance will be no more convincing to hon. Members of the Opposition for the fact that they have heard them many times pre-

viously, and have, perhaps, been beaten in the vote on them many times previously.
The debate has concentrated on the regulations which deal with discipline and deduction from seamen's wages. I want to speak briefly on them before turning to the other important matter specifically raised by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). I want to finish my speech by saying one or two things about that, to put what he said in perspective. I hope, therefore, that the House will understand it if I press on, because we are under a limitation as to time in any case.
The contentious regulations, as the Opposition Front Bench has identified them, are only two of the 21 sets of regulations made under the Act, which came into effect on 1st January. Taken together, they form the main body of those made under the Act and are largely designed to protect the interests of seafarers.
The combined effect of the 1970 regulations and the repeal of earlier legislation is therefore very much to the advantage of seamen, and I am sure that the House welcomes these much-needed reforms, even if there are two regulations among them which are being taken to a vote tonight. The making of these large number of regulations has been a heavy task for my Department, but it has been equipped to carry it out and is glad to have enjoyed the co-operation of both sides of the fishing and shipping industries, including the National Union of Seamen, the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers' Association and the British Shipping Federation, each of which made a valuable contribution. In the fishing industry we are indebted to the British and Scottish Trawler Federations and the Transport and General Workers Union for their help.
Perhaps, having listed some of those involved, I may say that under the relevant section of the Act the Secretary of State is bound to consult those organisations appearing to him as representative. It will not be disputed that the principal organisation for seamen is the National Union of Seamen. There is also the Transport and General Workers Union and the National Union of Public Employees, who represent the sludge workers in I know not what proportion amongst


the total of the 80 crew members involved. They represent only a very small fraction of the men in the Merchant Navy and it would be pushing things to far to say that unions which represent a fraction of 80 men have to be consulted. The Transport and General Workers Union was consulted over the fishing industry and it may be that on another occasion consultation may be taken further, but as I suggested to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, I have the feeling that in Committee and in all the stages on the Bill in which Labour Members no doubt took an active part the particular problems of the sludge vessels were never identified.
It would perhaps be too much to expect the disciplinary offences regulations to meet with universal approval, especially in view of the evidence of a split on the Opposition Front Bench in this matter—[Interruption.] It may be a range of thought but, however elegantly expressed, it is a split just the same. On discipline the Pearson Committee records that the National Union of Seamen argued strongly for the transfer of jurisdiction from the master to some other authority. The representatives of the British Shipping Federation, the Merchant Marine Services Association and the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers' Association were strongly in favour of preserving the master's jurisdiction, and the House will probably be aware of the sense of the findings of that committee at the end of the day. It is to be found in paragraph 287 of the report, which went on to say that the statutory provisions should not exclude a ship's committee system being brought in eventually and it recommended some experiments with ships to be made in the meantime. A section was included in the 1970 Act which provided for regulations to be made to provide for the setting up of ships' disciplinary committees and it was decided to have experiments before consideration was given to the drafting of regulations.
Under the terms and conditions agreed by the National Maritime Board, on which both sides of the shipping industry are represented, an experiment was carried out in 10 ships over six months. Under the arrangements a seaman who was alleged to have committed an offence was given the option of being dealt with by the master or by the disciplinary com-

mittee. The upshot of the experiment was that not one seaman charged with a disciplinary offence elected to be dealt with by the ship's committee. They all elected to be dealt with by the master. I cannot tell how many cases there were but the House will agree that the evidence was fairly conclusive, and it was for this reason that the National Maritime Board wrote to the Department saying that it did not wish the regulations to be made under Section 36 at the present time—and no such regulations have, therefore, been made. The matter has been left until, at some future date, it appears that the introduction of disciplinary committees is desirable. The matter can then be looked at again, and it may be helpful in the meantime for the House to have that statement of the position.
I do not know whether it would be particularly helpful now to deal with the question of shore-based committees but perhaps, instead, I may turn to the question of deductions from wages. It has been argued that there is no case for treating seaman differently from shore-based employees in relation to deductions from wages, and that it is wrong that a seaman's employer should have the right to make statutory deductions without having to prove justification for the deduction at law. That overlooks the provisions of Section 7 of the 1970 Act, which provided for a seaman's wages to be paid to him in full when he is discharged from his ship.
The section imposes severe penalties on an employer who fails to comply with the provision—[Interruption.] It is not a privilege but a right. The effect of Section 7 of the 1970 Act is to put a seaman in the same position as a "workman" who has the protection of the Truck Acts. Seamen have never been treated as "workmen" within the meaning of the Truck Acts and, in view of their separate treatment over a long period, they would, in the absence of special legislation, be in the same position as shore-based employees who are not protected by the Truck Acts. Their employers could delay or default in paying wages, or pay them in forms other than money. Seamen are not always paid at regular intervals. The amount of wages outstanding at the end of a voyage may well be considerable. It is more important to them than to


many shore-based employees that their wages should be promptly and properly paid, as Section 7 requires. If I may interrupt myself at that point, I will write to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East about the matter he raised in connection with the balance of seamen's wages held by the Department. I have no wish to withhold any information from him which I may have. However, it will take a bit of time before the hon. Gentleman receives the information.
For shore-based employees not within the scope of the Truck Acts there nothing to prevent an employer from retaining any part of an employee's wages to meet an alleged debt, leaving an employee to sue for his wages if he wishes to dispute the debt. That would apply in the case of a seagoing employee also were it not for Section 7. Furthermore, Section 7 places a seaman in a more favoured position than a shore-based employee—even one who has had the benefit of the Truck Acts—because the Truck Acts make no provision for payment of interest on overdue wages.
It is necessary, however, to balance Section 7 with the provision which enables an employer to recover from a seaman's wages sums properly due to him. That is the purpose of Section 9 and the regulations made under it. The regulations under Section 9 were agreed by the National Maritime Board, on which both sides of the shipping industry are represented. They are subject to a limitation imposed by the terms of the crew agreement, which in the case of seamen employed under the National Maritime Board Agreement means that deductions in respect of a breach of the agreement can be made only for those breaches which the board have agreed entail liability for deduction. The amount of deduction for such a breach must be no more than the ascertainable loss incurred by the employer, subject to a maximum amount which has been agreed by the National Maritime Board.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that of some help. I should explain that Section 10 provides for appeal to one of the Department's mercantile marine superintendents, or to a proper officer overseas, in the case of a dispute between an employer and a seaman about

the amount payable to a seaman under a crew agreement. Although the section requires that both parties must appeal before a superintendent can deal with the dispute, I understand that it has been agreed between the representatives of the employers and the seaman that if the seaman wishes to appeal, the employers will agree to the dispute being referred to a superintendent or a proper officer.
The whole purpose of the provisions is to provide for a prompt settlement of these matters without recourse to the lengthy process of law. The regulations do this in a fair and reasonable way, and with adequate safeguard for the seaman. However, if there is disagreement about that and if we find that the regulations do not work out in practice as we hope, they can be reviewed. It is trite to say that they are constantly under review, but if we find cases where we fail in our intention, or where inequity results from action that has been taken with good intention, we shall look at it at the time when it comes up, rather than set ourselves a distant time-scale within which to go to a review.
Perhaps I can leave the matter at this point. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman still speaks for the National Union of Seamen, but he and other hon. Members who speak with an identical voice on matters of this kind should not feel that they will be ignored by the Department. It is a matter of balance and a matter of negotiation. Basically it is in many cases a matter of common sense.
Turning to the Barrow Deep, I must say that having looked at the charts, I think that if the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford were able to come over to this side of the House and look over my shoulder he would agree that he must be fairly well out at sea by the time he gets there, whatever the lines on the map may say. I understand that the place where the activities of the sludge dumping vessels reach their culmination is a fair way out down the estuary and, I believe, capable of being seen to be outside the partially smooth water areas—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford makes a point about the 10-hour return. It takes less than 10 hours to get from Dover to Calais by ferry. It may even take less than 10


hours from Stranraer to Larne. There have been nasty seas and tragic accidents in those waters. It is an over-simplification to suppose that because it appears to be a short journey it involves no danger, no rough water and no other vessels in the seaway. I do not think the hon. Gentleman means to suggest that.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Can the hon. Gentleman define the line on the Admiralty chart of the smooth and partially smooth water areas?

Mr. Onslow: I do not think it is the same in summer as in winter; in summer the partially smooth water areas lie within a line from Clacton pier to Reculver and in winter from Colne Point to Whitstable. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman and I have been to the same source for our information. The hon. Gentleman said that half a mile either way the sea was not likely to be noticeably smoother. I do not believe that we need to dwell too long in dispute on this. I have other things to tell the hon. Gentleman that I believe he will wish to know.
In any case, there is little doubt in the minds of the mariners, the masters, the experts on these conditions, that the vessels are fairly and squarely at sea when they go out there. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to try it when the service is resumed. I understand that he has volunteered to go on the first boat out.
The background to the dispute is much as the House has been told. The GLC operates five vessels, each of about 2,000 tons gross for the purpose of dumping sludge, which is carried from the GLC works at Beckton and dumped at Barrow Deep, a round voyage of about 45 miles. The dumping grounds are outside the partially smooth water limits laid down for compliance with the Merchant Shipping (Life-saving) Rules 1965, but marginally within the PLA harbour limits, which have recently been substantially extended to allow for the prospective Maplin Sands developments. That extension may alter lines on the map, but probably does not make much difference to the water.
The GLC takes the view that in the course of their regular voyages the vessels go to sea. Having taken legal advice, the Department is inclined to agree. The

GLC is not prepared to allow its vessels to go to sea unless the requirements of Section 1 are complied with. That is the origin of the difficulty. It is not a lock-out but a genuine legal difficulty in which the GLC finds itself unless it can satisfy the requirements of the Act by which it is bound.
There is a dispute. It is unofficial, but the GLC has, I understand, had meetings with the men and the unions which represent them—the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Public Employees. It has also discussed the matter with the Merchant Navy and Airline Officers' Association, which represents the officers. The view of the MNAOA is understood to be that the vessels are sea-going and that the men should be employed under crew agreements and subject to the disciplinary regulations. The GLC is exploring ways of reaching a settlement, which will have to take account of the views of both the officers and the men.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister accept that the men sailed under articles before but that the GLC staff agreement applied to them? Why cannot he suggest now that if the men are prepared to sign the articles the staff agreement will nevertheless apply to them?

Mr. Onslow: That is a matter not for me but for the GLC. However, I have seen articles of the type which I understand were signed without question and complaint, and I must say, if the anxiety of the men is about their liability under the Act to deduction of wages, that those articles seem to have exposed them to more stringent penalties, such as the deduction of a day's pay.
The inferences to be drawn from the situation are not for me to analyse, but it is perhaps fair to bear in mind that there is another side to the coin of being regarded as seagoing. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford said that the men had never regarded the ships as seagoing. But other sections of the Act, notably Section 71, under which discharge books are supplied to seamen, apply only to seagoing ships, and I understand that the men have not hesitated to apply for such books and thereby at least to indicate that they do not dispute the proposition that the vessels are seagoing.
Nevertheless, in response to requests from both sides to the dispute, guidance has been given on the effect of the 1970 Act and the regulations. The GLC has been informed that in the event that they wish to use provisions in a crew agreement in addition to or in place of approved provisions consideration will be given to the request. It has also been indicated that the Department would give consideration to any request for administrative exemption from the requirements of Section 1—crew agreements. But if the GLC is correct in its view, with which we agree, that these are sea-going vessels, the disciplinary offences regulations will apply; but, as explained above, they provide only that a fine may be imposed.
I hope that I may be forgiven if I do not allow myself to be drawn any further, because I want to give assurance on the other matters which the hon. Member raised. His language was a little colourful; that must have been the effect of listening to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East. On the issue of health hazards I can assure him that there is no indifference to the health of his constituents on the part of the Government or, I believe, on the part of the GLC. I am advised that the GLC consulted its medical officers today and they were satisfied that there is no medical risk. They say that the sewage is treated and any smell is minimal. Storage in lagoons has only recently started. If the lagoons have more than one foot of sludge in them they are being fenced.
I do not say that the hon. Member must take this from me, I can pass on to him an offer from the GLC that facilities will be given to him to visit these lagoons tomorrow morning in company with the GLC medical adviser. After this debate

I can give him two telephone numbers which he can ring to make arrangements. I have no doubt that he will receive enormous publicity over this. I am sure that he will take particular care not to fall in, but he will find conditions so safe that that danger does not beset him I hope that I have given him the indication that there is no danger and that the GLC will be glad to explain the circumstances.

I am aware that in a relatively short time I have had to cover a great deal of ground, and I am conscious of the fact that I have left out much of what I wanted to say. I am also conscious that the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness asked questions which I have not answered and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) made a point about conspiracy which I certainly can confirm. I am sorry that I was not able to hear the whole debate, but I put it fairly to the House that there is a matter here where there may be dispute and disagreement and at the end of the day a vote, and the reasons for that vote go back deep into time. I hope, however, that taking a vote will not be taken as indicative of basic disagreement that we all want to see safety and good conditions for men in this industry as I believe the Government wish to see in all other sections of the industry of this country.

Question put,
That the Merchant Shipping (Disciplinary Offences) Regulations 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1294), dated 17th August 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th August, in the last Session of Parliament, be withdrawn.

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 144.

Division No. 44.]
AYES
[9.39 p.m.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Coleman, Donald
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Atkinson, Norman
Dalyell, Tam
Ford, Ben


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Bishop, E. S.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gourlay, Harry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Booth, Albert
Dormand, J. D.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Eadie, Alex
Hamling, William


Carmichael, Nell
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ellis, Tom
Hardy, Peter


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Evans, Fred
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Cohen, Stanley
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Hart. Rt. Hn. Judith




Heffer, Eric S.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Sillars, James


Horam, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, John
Small, William


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Millan, Bruce
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Spearing, Nigel


Janner, Greville
Murray, Ronald King
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ogden, Eric
Stallard, A. W.


Kaufman, Gerald
O'Halloran, Michael
Steel, David


Kelley, Richard
Orme, Stanley
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lambie, David
Oswald, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


Lamond, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Tinn, James


Latham, Arthur
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Urwin, T. W.


Lawson, George
Perry, Ernest G.
Varley, Eric G.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Prescott, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Probert, Arthur
Watkins, David


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wellbeloved, James


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Whitehead, Phillip


McBride, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


McCartney, Hugh
Roper, John
Woof, Robert


McElhone, Frank
Rose, Paul B.



McGuire, Michael
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rowlands, Ted



Marks, Kenneth
Sandelson, Neville
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Marquand, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Mr. John Golding.


Marsden, F.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)



Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Silverman, Julius





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grylls, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Monro, Hector


Atkins, Humphrey
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Havers, Sir Michael
Murton, Oscar


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey


Blaker, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hiley, Joseph
Normanton, Tom


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Onslow, Cranley


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Osborn, John


Bowden, Andrew
Holt, Miss Mary
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hornby, Richard
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Buck, Antony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Parkinson, Cecil


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hunt, John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Redmond. Robert


Chapman, Sydney
James, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Churchill, W. S.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clark, William (Surrey, E.I
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cooke, Robert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott Nicholas


Coombs, Derek
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Kershaw, Anthony



Cormack, Patrick
Kilfedder, James
Shersby, Michael


Critchley, Julian
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Skeet, T. H. H.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Soref, Harold



Kinsey J. R.
Speed, Keith


Dean, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Spence, John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knox, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lane, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Dykes, Hugh
Langford-Holt Sir John
Stokes, John


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Sutcliffe, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Tebbit, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John




 Luce, R. N.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
MacArthur, Ian
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fidler, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.
Trew, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fookes, Miss Janet
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Waddington, David


Foster, Sir John
Madel, David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fowler, Norman
Mather, Carol
Ward, Dame Irene


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)



Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moate, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Green. Alan
Money, Ernle
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Merchant Shipping (Seamen's Wages and Accounts) Regulations 1972 (S.I. 1972, No. 1700), dated 9th November 1972, a

copy of which was laid before this House on 17th November, be withdrawn.—[Mr. Booth.]

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 144.

Division No. 45.]
AYES
[9.48 p.m.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Stanley


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Oswald, Thomas


Ashton, Joe
Hamling, William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Atkinson, Norman
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hardy, Peter
Perry, Ernest G.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Prescott, John


Bishop, E. S.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Probert, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Horam, John
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Bottomley Rt. Hn. Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Roper, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)



Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rose, Paul B.


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Greville
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rowlands, Ted


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sanderson, Neville


Cohen, Stanley
Kelley, Richard
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Coleman, Donald
Lambie, David
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Concannon, J. D.
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Latham, Arthur
Silverman, Julius


Dalyell, Tam
Lawson, George
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Small, William


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spearing, Nigel


Doig, Peter
McBride, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Dormand, J. D.
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Steel, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
McGuire, Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Eadie, Alex
McNamara, J. Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Ellis, Tom
Marquand, David
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Fred

Varley, Eric G.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Marsden, F.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B' ham, Ladywood)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Watkins, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Ford, Ben
Mendelson, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Ogden, Eric
Mr. John Golding.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
O'Halloran, Michael





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Higgins, Terence L.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hiley, Joseph


Atkins, Humphrey
Dykes, Hugh
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hill, James, (Southampton, Test)


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Holt, Miss Mary


Biffen, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hornby, Richard


Biggs-Davison, John
Eyre, Reginald
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Blaker, Peter
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fidler, Michael
Hunt, John


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fookes, Miss Janet
James, David


Bowden, Andrew
Fortescue, Tim
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Foster, Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Fowler, Norman
Jopling, Michael


Buck, Antony
Fox, Marcus
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Goodhew, Victor
Kershaw, Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Gower, Raymond
Kilfedder, James


Churchill, W. S.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gray, Hamish
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Clegg, Walter
Green, Alan
Kinsey, J. R.


Cooke, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Coombs, Derek
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Knox, David


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Lane, David


Cormack, Patrick
Haselhurst, Alan
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Critchley, Julian
Havers, Sir Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. Jack
Hawkins, Paul
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Dean, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Loveridge, John




Luce, R. N.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacArthur, Ian
Normanton, Tom
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


McCrindle, R. A.
Onslow, Cranley
Stokes, John


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Osborn, John
Sutcliffe, John


McMaster, Stanley
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Page, Rt Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Tebbit, Norman


Madel, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Mather, Carol
Parkinson, Cecil
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Mawby, Ray
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Trew, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Redmond, Robert
Tugendhat, Christopher


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waddington, David


Moate, Roger
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Molyneaux, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Ward, Dame Irene


Money, Ernie
Scott, Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wiggin, Jerry


Monro, Hector
Shersby, Michael
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Skeet, T. H. H.



Mudd, David
Soref, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Murton, Oscar
Speed, Keith
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Spence, John
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Neave, Airey






Question accordingly negatived.


Mr. Speaker: I understand that the other Prayers and motions are not being moved.


Mr. Booth: That is correct.

RATE REBATES

9.58 p.m.

The Minister of Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move,
That the Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House to take the similar motion relating to Scotland at the same time—
That the Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) (Scotland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.

Mr. Page: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
Rates are of course a topical subject but these orders deal with only one aspect of the liability for the payment of rates, namely, the amount by which the rate demand upon an individual ratepayer should be reduced by reason of his lack of means. In short, what we are dealing with in these orders is the rate rebate.
These orders are based on the existing statutory system of rebates—in many respects, I readily admit, an unsatisfactory system and one which, as I have foreshadowed occasionally from this Box, will receive consideration under the local government finance legislation which was forecast in the Gracious Speech last October. But any revision of the basis of the system needs legislation, and we must proceed at present on the basis of existing statutes.
Ratepayers below a certain level of income are entitled to what I would call a common rebate. Apart from a fairly rapid tapering when the income is marginal, the rebate is on the same basis for all who qualify. Everyone pays the first £3·75 of the half-year's rate demand and one-third of the difference between that £3·75 and the amount of the half-year's demand. What these orders seek to do is to raise the level of income below which the ratepayer qualifies for rebate. The orders do not alter the amount of the rebate. They do not seek to relate directly the amount of rates payable to the income of the ratepayer. Those are steps which can be taken only by some legislative vehicle other than orders of this sort.
It is just one year, I recollect, since the House last debated a Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Order. The need for these orders stems directly from the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to uprate national insurance retirement pensions and other social security benefits—an improvement in the social security system which is of immense importance to many people.
I have tried to explain the method of rebate. In doing so I perhaps blurred the object, which is to help those with low incomes whose rates are not already paid in full by the Supplementary Benefits Commission to pay the rates on their homes. When I said "those with low incomes" perhaps I should have said "those with low gross incomes", because I am conscious of the annoyance and, indeed, anger of many people that such items of income as war disability pensions, attendance allowances, and so on, are taken as part of the gross income in judging the limit below which the ratepayer qualifies for rebate. That again is something which deserves consideration in preparing the legislation on local government finance, but again I fear it is not something that we can meet without legislation, and certainly not under these orders.
At present the prescribed income limits are £12 a week for a single person and £14·75 for a married couple. Those income limits are increased by £2·50 a week for each dependent child. If the House approves these orders tonight the limits will be increased to £13·50 a week for a single person and £16·50 for a married couple. The addition for each dependent child will be £2·75 a week.
As I have said, the orders are needed because of the annual uprating of social security benefits which have now been introduced. The last uprating was in October 1972, when the retirement pension went up by 12½ per cent. About 85 per cent. of the 800,000 recipients of rate rebates in England and Wales and 78 per cent. of the 100,000 recipients in Scotland are retirement pensioners. In addition, about two and a half million receive supplementary benefit which clears their rates for them.
If the present rate rebate income limits were left unchanged some of those


800,000 people in England and 100,000 in Scotland—including so many of them as are retirement pensioners with incomes near the present qualifying limits—would lose their entitlement to rebate, or part of their entitlement, as a result of the higher pensions which have been payable since October. That has not yet happened because in England and Wales the entitlement to rebate in the half-yearly periods beginning in April and October is based on the gross income for the previous periods of July to December and January to June respectively. That means, for example, that the rebates payable from April 1973 will be based on gross incomes in the period July to December 1972. In Scotland the rating year begins somewhat later, and the six-monthly income assessment periods begin in April and October. Thus, the increase in social security benefits from October will be matched by an increase in income limits bearing on rate rebate for the period commencing on or shortly after 16th May next.
I emphasise that there is no entitlement to relief if the ratepayer is receiving supplementary benefit which takes into account his rate liability. Clearly, no rebate can be claimed if a householder's rates are being paid in full by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and about two-and-a-half million people are helped in that way.
In 1971–72 the average domestic rate bill in England and Wales was £53, and the average individual rebate granted to those entitled to rebate was £22·79—a quite substantial proportion. In Scotland the corresponding figures for 1971–72 are £58·33 and £26·05. For 1972–73 I can only estimate the figures. For England and Wales the average rate bill is £60 and for Scotland £61. It is estimated that the rebates granted in the year will cost about £24 million of which 75 per cent. is paid by the central Government—that is about £18 million.
Hon. and right hon. Members will be Justified in asking whether that contribution from the central Government is sufficient to cope with the hardship which rate rebates are intended to meet. I think that it is enough by this method as the rebate system stands at present. It is the same rebate for all who qualify. It is an indiscriminate form of relief, but it

may be said that, having regard to the forecast of the level of rates for 1973–74, one-third of the difference between £3·75 and the rate demand may still be crippling to those who qualify for rebate. I am putting a possible argument that we ought to do something more than the order is designed to do.
The Government have already done much to prevent rates rising too greatly in the next year. We shall contribute 60p in every £ of estimated local government expenditure. I appreciate that the worry at the moment is whether, with revaluation, even if the rate poundage is properly reduced by the local authority—as it will be—if the rateable value of any house has increased above the average, that one-third may still come as a severe blow to those who are receiving rebates. But to increase the limit of qualification under this order would not solve that problem. It needs to be solved in other ways. Merely to increase the qualification limit would be too indiscriminate. I do not think we could extend it any further than giving it the same coverage over the next year as it has always had since its innovation in 1966.
The purpose of the order is to keep matters on an even keel, the Government having increased the pension last October. As for any other assistance which may be necessary, we must look to other forms of relief, but we cannot do anything further under this order.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: We are grateful for this limited opportunity to discuss the rate situation since a great crisis faces our large cities in terms of the present rate burdens.
I wish the Minister could have explained in a little more detail the basis upon which the Government have arrived at these figures. He concedes that it would have been possible to increase them over and above these figures, but he said that it would have been indiscriminate aid. I regard the whole approach as indiscriminate, because the Minister said that 60p in the £ will be given to help to relieve the rate burden of local authorities. In the past few years Bristol has received only 43p in the £ to help alleviate its rate burden.
I concede the Minister's point that when we talk about rent rebates we talk about an existing system and that tonight


we cannot restructure the whole of local government finance. In fact we look forward to receiving the Minister's proposals on that in due course. We have to deal with the existing situation. But on the right hon. Gentleman's own admission it is unsatisfactory and the rebate is the same for all who qualify.
The Minister has been trying as far as possible to deal with matters which are constants in this equation. But he has glossed over quickly and perhaps a little smoothly the fact that there is now a variable which has not been present in previous years. It is the question of revaluation. I think that we ought to consider the effect of it on rate rebate orders of this kind.
There is a very different impact on different people. It means that a system which operated evenly and fairly over the population as a whole in the past will now become discriminating in terms of the amount of relief which it gives to individuals.
Perhaps I might be allowed to quote some figures from my local authority. It is the one that I know best. What is more the Minister is familiar with Bristol. He has been referred to frequently as "the undertaker of Bristol" since he has reduced our once proud city to the status of a jazzed-up parish council.
The general effect of revaluation is to increase rateable values by a factor of 2·2. In Bristol the domestic factor will be increased by 2·5, in older estates by a factor of 2·6 and in some newer estates by a factor of 2·9. Within the Bristol ratepaying community as a whole differences are now appearing which were not there before we considered these latest orders. The rate increases which are envisaged in Bristol in order to maintain and improve existing services and to take account of inflation and the new responsibilities placed upon local authorities will fall more heavily on some people than on others. Therefore of those in receipt of rate rebate some will be discriminated against through the lack of sensitivity in this order.
I wish that there was more possibility for flexibility in orders of this kind. We tend to look upon the rating crisis in much too glib and easy a manner. We

cannot allow the Minister's comments to pass unchallenged. We ought to put it on record that to deal with the problem arising from revaluation whereby some people who in the past have been receiving the same rebate as others will have to pay proportionately far more, there should be some effort to give them relief. If that is not possible through the order, it should be acknowledged that greater hardship will result.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: The Minister has readily criticised the system under which these orders are made by drawing attention to the tapering-off effect when a certain income is reached and the fact that everyone gets the same rebate who comes into the system. It was a system brought in by the Labour Government. But it is a much better system than the niggardly rate relief given by their predecessors. It has developed faults as it has gone on, and it has the faults of all means-tested benefits.
The news does not always get through to those who ought to have means-tested benefits, and some people will not apply for them. But old people regard rate rebates as respectable, whereas applications for supplementary benefit are not. This is partly due to the campaigns mounted in some newspapers against supplementary benefit and social security which in my opinion have been quite wrong.
I should like to think that the authorities, whether the Department of Health and Social Security or town councils, will let people know the most favourable applications for them to make whether for supplementary benefit, rate and rent rebate or other relief. I have found that many people have not been getting the benefits to which they are entitled because they did not know the system.
Where there are substantial rebates—there are in places with high proportions of poor people, pensioners and large families—the Government make a grant towards them. But here we have the big city problem again. The big cities do not get help with rate rebates, or very few of them, because they do not qualify for the resources element of the grant. When they have paid out these rate rebates, or not collected them, they have


lost that income. This is yet another problem that the big cities will face this year.
Some people in Manchester and probably Bristol and other cities who will pay for these rate rebates are just above the margin. Some of them with families, perhaps on £23 or £24 a week, are not only paying their own rates—and they need bigger houses—but are paying towards the rebates for people who are just below the margin. I hope that when the Prime Minister meets representatives of the big cities—I understand that it is to be on Friday, 9th February—this matter will be taken into consideration. We accept that tonight nothing can be done. We welcome the fact that people who got rate rebates last year will not be priced out of them this year. This is yet another problem facing the big cities which I hope will be taken into account at that meeting.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I wish to raise only one or two small but nevertheless important matters to people who are concerned whether they qualify for the rate rebate.
I hesitate to complain very much about the order. The amount of assistance which comes from the rebate, which stems from Section 49 of the 1967 Act, is a welcome form of relief to many people. But time has passed and a number of new economic stringencies have impinged upon the generality of people.
The revaluation has come as a sharp shock to many people, basically because there is not much understanding about the mechanism of the rating process. I am sure the Minister will agree that as politicians we are sometimes confounded in trying to get over to people what is meant by rateable value, how it is reflected in terms of payment from their pockets, that they have to wait until another period has passed before the rate poundage is declared, that although it is a second apparent increase to them, the psychology concerns us, and that, even after that, the working out of the pounds and pence part in terms of payment relating to the rateable value arising from the declaration of the rate poundage produces great difficulties for us all.
With the passing of five years since the Act came into force, the changing economic conditions, and the new rating valuation there is a need, as my hon. Friends have already pointed out, to review the objectives of the Act. It seems that serious discriminations are now becoming evident. There are people in the low income groups, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) referred, who have found themselves just beyond the point of qualification and are subsidising people who are just marginally worse off than they are.
That raises the major question how in practice a person meets his need to be considered for a rebate. How does he make the first steps? When he has found out about that, to what extent is the form of application so complicated that it is practically a deterrent? Some of us are very worried about the way local authorities go about this part of the business. We must bear in mind that many low-paid workers, not because of a lack of intelligence but because of the pressures and the nature of the circumstances in which they live, are already well weakened in their approach to complicated form-filling.

Mr. Michael Cocks: In that connection, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that when I went to the Bristol City Council offices and asked for an application form for rebate—because I was interested in the form of the application—it was not until I told the people there that I was mindful that I might he qualified for a rebate that I was allowed to have a form to take away to study.

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend will agree that those of us who have had to go to our local council office or had to respond to pleas made by our constituents have had very much that sort of experience. Certainly this is a matter which the Department should look at because ultimately, if it is the Government's concern—as I am sure it is, because there is no argument about the principle—as to the number of people who are not yet applying, there are serious underlying reasons for that which are not totally reasons of ignorance. They arise sometimes from the simple fact that once confronted with a form or faced with some


of the awesome conditions in municipal offices, people are frightened of taking the next step which might lead them to qualify.
The Minister will, perhaps, correct me on this matter, but it might be as well if we looked at the question whether it is right to look at the gross income rather than at another form of income which might be called a net income after certain matters are taken into account. It seems that there may be a point here. I merely mention it as a contribution to my concern about approaches to the simplification of this matter from the outset. It may be helpful.
Finally, I should like to feel that the Government might be disposed to give more information to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) has already talked about how the figures are arrived at. No matter how generous the figures look, we are faced with a terrifying situation when, with limited income, we have to meet the costs of living in any event. For instance, we are dealing with a very special section of the community in a country in which the average wage in manufacturing industry is now £36 per week. When I was a young man, £10 or £12 sounded like a considerable sum. That sum is now extremely small in comparison with the financial requirements necessary for the needs of present day society.
One fact related to this theme is the differential between the qualifying income for married couples and that for a single person. While there is a differential here to meet the point I have in mind, nevertheless, it is clearly understood nowadays that the domestic demands upon a single parent are sometimes very much greater than those on a married couple. The case of the single-parent family has already been made out in the past few months by a number of organisations. It is a factor which might be taken into account in future by the Government. I fully support the orders because their objectives follow the principle of an Act passed by the Labour Government which provided greater help than any other Act.
I hope that the Government will aim for simplicity, remove the discrimination, tell us more about how they arrive at

their figures and say whether they think that the differentials between married and single people are appropriate.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Frank McElhone: While we always welcome any increase in rate or rent rebates or any Government assistance, the only point of agreement between the Minister and myself concerns his comments on the rethink of local Government finance. There is a tremendous burden on local authorities and a strain on the treasurers, as I am sure will be clear from the meeting which I understand will be held between the Prime Minister and the city treasurers. There is an urgent and grave need for a rethink on local Government finance and it is a pre-requisite in any change in the local Government structure.

Mr. Leadbitter: My hon. Friend should realise that the increase in the amount contained in the order is not matched by an increase in real terms. That is why I have asked for the figures.

Mr. McElhone: I hasten to agree with my hon. Friend in certain respects. It is strange to see the twinge of conscience on the Tory benches. That is a strange phenomenon because the first action of the Tory Government when they came to power was to publish a White Paper promising rebates by the Chancellor. The rebates he gave amounted to £350 million but they went to the surtax and corporation tax payers—the people who paid the Government into power by their financial support in the 1970 campaign. I have paid tribute in the past to the loyalty of the Government's supporters, but nevertheless it is good to see this twinge of conscience——

Mr. William Ross: I can see only empty benches.

Mr. McElhone: Perhaps we are witnessing the first conversion on the road to Damascus, but the Government would have to travel far along that road before we were satisfied, especially in view of the paltry increase contained in the order. The Government should be ashamed of themselves because it is subsequent legislation stemming from the gifts to surtax and corporation tax payers during that period that has created the poverty which now exists in this country. Part of that


rebate created a 25 per cent. increase in food prices. To pay for the £350 million, we lost £140 million in food subsidies that the Labour Government had given to the people.
We have the benefit of a Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench tonight. Perhaps his recent legislation is another reason for this paltry increase. The Housing Finance Act has already caused a great deal of hardship in Scotland. Private property owners are going to the rent tribunals for rent increases of up to 500 per cent. I claim no knowledge of rents and rates in England, but I know that when rents in Scotland are increased there are increased valuations, with substantial rate increases later. A representative of the Property Owners and Factors Association has said that he is looking for an average 500 per cent. increase in private property rents. Those living in the properties, many for a long time, will find the supposed assistance totally inadequate.
I see about 2,800 people at my weekly surgeries. The vast majority are pensioners who have worked most of their lives and do not receive supplementary benefit, perhaps because they have a small superannuation payment, for which they have made sacrifices. Therefore, they just meet, or do not meet, the requirement for the increased Government assistance.
The big problem is the lack of take-up of Government benefits. Perhaps we shall have to resort to Marjorie Proops again to tell people of the benefits of FIS and the increased rebates.
A study of my constituency shows that there is a feeling of indignity, the stigma of being a pauper, about some benefits. Because of inflation, the increased cost of living brought about by the present Government, people are more and more forced on to the means test. The Government seem to have a means test mania, with their FIS and other schemes. They should be looking at the situation from a completely different angle.
Glasgow has a very serious problem, and not only in housing. It is spending about £180 million on highways alone. To tackle urban renewal and follow the programme the Minister has advocated for the city, the ratepayers will have to pay a great deal more. We all want

to see a better standard in our cities, but more support from the Government is needed. The special sum of £5 million was given to Glasgow, but the Minister realises that that is inadequate to meet its needs.
Because of the increased cost of living brought about by the Government, and because of their vicious Housing Finance Act, which will increase the rents of all houses in Scotland—the Minister shakes his head, but he knows that as a result of his forcing a general rent rebate scheme on local authorities Glasgow in particular has suffered very badly. It was forced to give up its own generous and much better scheme. The Minister shakes his head, but he apparently fails to recollect the many discussions we had in Committee on the Scottish Local Government Finance Bill.

Mr. Ross: He does not want to remember them.

Mr. McElhone: He does not want to remember them because his conscience is being disturbed. I hope that I am not digressing from discussion of this order, but the Minister has not been completely honest with Scottish hon. Members. I hope that he will have the audacity to try to reply to the allegations which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) and I make tonight.
Any increase is welcome, but the city treasurer of Glasgow will realise that with the change in the administration and the work thrown on the staff—which is already in difficulty by virtue of coming changes in local government—he will find this an imposition which is not welcome. If in some way the Minister can guarantee that this money will be an uplift for many people, particularly pensioners, and that it will be taken up much better than FIS, I shall feel more mollified than I have been in the past.
The Minister knows that the £2·60 does not really touch on the rate increase which will face Glasgow citizens and many in other Scottish cities in the next two or three years. I should like him, with his colleagues, to have a rethink on an urgent reappraisal of local government finance and a discussion with Scottish local government treasurers on their projected increases. When he sees the very necessary plans they have in mind


he will realise that this supposedly adequate assistance will be totally inadequate.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am reluctant to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) in a vicious attack on the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] He has done it so well that there is no need for me to do so.
All this order does is once again to admit that the Government have completely failed to do anything about inflation. This is merely a holding operation to keep in line with pension increases which did not increase in real value but merely caught up with the cost of living. I do not think the Government can take much credit for this order, which is certainly overdue.
I make one small point which I am sorry to have to make. The explanatory note in the English order is slightly better laid out than that in the Scottish order. I prefer the nicely set out table in the English order.
I detect a distinct lack of enthusiasm for this scheme as a whole. This was evident in the rather tepid introduction by the Minister. I should have thought that each time there is such an order there is an opportunity for the Government to give us a little more information. Are some authorities better than others? Is the uplift better in some areas than in others, bearing in mind that with an ageing population examination of statistics is required? The House needs this information from time to time. I do not detect any drive on the part of the Government to pursue this. It is an uncharitable thought, but perhaps it is because the Government have to find 75 per cent. of the cost. It may help to explain why there is no great drive and it is left to local authorities. We are entitled to more information about whether the statistics can be obtained, whether Government Departments do gather them.
We are finding difficulty with people who are above the limits for supplementary benefit. I am not criticising, but merely suggesting that this needs to be examined. There is always a reluctance on the part of Government Departments to advise people to claim from the local

authority. It might be done now, but I am reasonably certain that there is no clear instruction to the social security or supplementary benefit offices that if they get a claim from someone above the limits they should advise him to go to the local authority for rent and rate rebates. The last thing a civil servant wants to be seen to be doing is telling people to go to local authorities.
Most of us in our surgeries are coming across people who should have been claiming such rebates or allowances but have not been advised to make an application. How many people drawing family income supplement are entitled to rent and rate rebates. There are different groups of officials making separate calculations within departments of authorities dealing with each subject. I know that the Government have promised to streamline things but the way the orders are presented is typical of the narrow-minded approach whereby a Department says, as they say in Glasgow, "It is nothing to do with me; that is someone else's problem." We need a little more information to help bring these matters together and assist the maximum number of people.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: This has been an interesting little debate in cameo on an important subject. The Minister began by telling us that rates are a topical subject. I looked round the House. There was not a single Conservative or Liberal backbencher who felt it worth while to attend—with the exception of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who is here because he has the Adjournment and wishes to address us an another topic of Government iniquity—VAT.
I agree that rates are a topical subject. In my years in the House I cannot think of a time when there has been more general concern throughout the country about the effect of the rate burden. The Government are in a state of chaos and do not know what to do. We have the remarkable situation in which almost every local authority is deciding what the rate burden ought to be while at the same time there is great difficulty over revaluation and universal agreement that no local authority can keep the rates within the limits which the Government


intend to impose. Yet so far we have had no indication from the Government about what they are going to do to help the local authorities in these circumstances. Not only that but the right hon. Gentleman very charitably acknowledged the chaos which exists.

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Graham Pageindicated dissent.

Mr. Howell: Yes, indeed. Not only did the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the chaos but admitted that these orders cannot deal with it. He said that it had to be dealt with in some forthcoming legislation. He said that it would receive consideration as forecast in the Gracious Speech. That means that at some time in the future we shall be getting a Bill for the reform of local government finance as well as of the rating system as a principal means of raising that finance. That was forecast in October. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us when we are to see this legislation.
I cannot believe that there is anyone in the country who does not want to see a reform of local government finance, and surely there is no one left who has a good word to say about the rating system, which has proved to be totally unable to meet the needs of society.

Mr. Graham Page: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest now what he would put in place of rates?

Mr. Howell: I will respond to that invitation. When I was on the back benches, I put forward a scheme for a local income tax and spelt it out in some detail. The thing which offends so many ratepayers is that they all have to pay the same amount of rates. For example, a number of people with families use local government services more than a lot of other people do. We thus have the classic case of the pensioner paying as much money in rates as the family next door with four incomes coming into the house. What offends so many people is that the rates burden has no relation to the ability to bear it.
I say that off the cuff, as it were, in answer to the generous intervention by the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure how far I carry my hon. Friends with me in the idea of a local income tax, but I do carry them with me a long way when I say that almost any alternative is prefer-

able to the present system, which is creaking and breaking down under the strain.
The intervention by the right hon. Gentleman can only mean that the Government would like to produce a Bill for the reform of local government finance if only they knew what to produce. The right hon. Gentleman has now given us a Freudian insight into the Government's thinking. The Government forecast in the Gracious Speech the reform of local government finance and the rating system, yet three months later, when I ask whether we are to get what we were promised, the right hon. Gentleman asks what we think the Government should do. It is an insight into the way the Government produce their legislation.

Mr. Graham Page: This is good to and fro debate, but I recollect that when I was sitting where the hon. Gentleman is sitting now his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), speaking as a Minister at the Dispatch Box six years ago, said "Of course we shall do away with rates." The right hon. Gentleman never suggested how he would do away with them, and I was inquiring whether the hon. Gentleman knew what was in his right hon. Friend's mind six years ago.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Before we get too involved in this discussion I think we ought to remember that we are discussing two orders, and I have my mind on the Under-Secretary of State for Development at the Scottish Office who has to reply. We should not get too diverted, because we do not have very much longer for this debate.

Mr. Howell: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall bear in mind what you have said. If I can be told of any good reason for agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), even at this time of night, I shall be delighted to hear it. I was not aware of his wise words six years ago, but I support them now.
The Minister admitted all the limitations in these orders. He did so with the candour and frankness that we have come to expect of him. He said that their purpose was to keep things on an even keel. The Opposition's case today is that rates this year have been on anything


but an even keel. Local authorities are sinking rapidly—if we are to use these nautical metaphors—in trying to deal with the rating system.
The Minister said that the need for these orders arose principally from the increase in social security benefits, which, he said, amounted to 12½ per cent. I have made a mathematical calculation of the increase in the rebate allowance for which these orders allow, and I make the figure 10¼ per cent. If social security benefits have increased by 12½ per cent., and if allowance is being increased by only 10¼ per cent., it must follow that this is a worsening of the position of old-age pensioners and people in receipt of social security benefits.
I assume that the Minister's figure is correct. If it is, and if my figure is also correct—which I am sure it is—it means that many old-age pensioners and people on social security benefits who are now able to qualify for rate rebates might be worse off when they get the increase proposed in the orders. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State would clear that up.
The new allowance is to be £16·50 for a married couple, plus £2·75 for each child. If one considers—as we normally do in the House—a married man with a wife and two children, under these orders he will qualify for the new rebates if his income is £22, which I think is the limit. Unless it is contradicted by what I have said about old-age pensioners and people on social security, it is relevant to point out that there are many working people with an income of less than £22 a week coming into the family. My union, APECCS, has clerical and computer staff who come into that category, and only today I have been looking at what they earn. There is no doubt that many of them will come under the £22 limit. This is a serious matter. No doubt the Government will say that if that is so they are the very people for whom the allowance is being increased.
That takes us directly to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) was making, that local authorities will have to pay if there is a big increase in take-up because of these allowances. If the TUC and other organisations advertise the opportunities for very low paid

workers, there will be a tremendous take-up of rate rebates which most of us would want to see, but that burden will be shouldered by the rest of the ratepaying community because of the system under which the Government pay only 75 per cent. of the money for this purpose. We face a serious situation.
I referred to this as a chaotic situation. My hon. Friends have referred to it in more eloquent language, but all confirm that theory. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) described it as a crisis. My hon. Friend the Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) said that ratepayers were in for a short, sharp shock. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said quite rightly that the introduction of these orders was one more indication of the Government's failure to deal with inflationary problems——

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Total failure.

Mr. Howell: —total failure to deal with the inflationary problem facing the country. All these statements have been borne out.
I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan who touched on a point which I want to raise. We are dealing with some of the poorest members of our society. They have to be in that category to qualify for these rate rebates. They are the same people who would nowadays be expected to qualify for rent rebate, for family income supplement, for free school meals for children, for freedom from health charges, if, unfortunately, they are sick, and by one means or another, for social security benefit.
If one adds up all the benefit entitlements, the forms which have to be filled in, and the applications which have to be made by these people, a frightening situation emerges of gross indignities and inequities with which we face the poorest members of society so that they may get the benefits which Parliament wishes them to have.

Mr. McElhone: Means test society.

Mr. Howell: A means test society, as my hon. Friend says.
We have tonight two of the more civilised members of the Government


with us. It is a high compliment—because it is difficult to find two civilised members of the Government—to have two of them on the same night dealing with one subject. May I ask them, therefore, to use their good offices and take this up with the Government. These are people who are finding difficulty in making ends meet, and yet I have dealt with six separate items available to them, each of which they have to apply for separately, and which are dealt with by different Government or local government departments. It would be helpful if these could be put together so that welfare and security benefits were available to everybody on one application and it was somebody's duty to say to people in difficult circumstances "Let us go through all the possibilities of help which national and local government try to make available, avoiding the difficulty of a multiplicity of applications."
We shall support the orders, limited though they are, because they are a move in the right direction, but we do not kid ourselves that in supporting the orders we shall relieve poverty. We shall not do anything of the sort. We are marginally worsening the position for people on social security benefits and we are acknowledging the dangers of inflation and the great difficulties which local authorities face. The Government are producing an extra 6 per cent. of financial help for local authorities at a time when there is hardly one local authority that can limit its rate increase to that.
Ours is a disgraceful rating system. The Prime Minister and other Ministers tell the House and the country that the Government are producing 60 per cent. of help for local authorities in this year's general rate support grant order, yet those of us who represent big cities such as Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and Glasgow know that that is a total misconception. In Birmingham alone the amount of Government financial help through the general grant order will be not 60 per cent. but 42 per cent., a matter which will be borne in upon the Prime Minister when the representatives of the big cities and of the Association of Municipal Corporations meet him.
We support the orders as far as they go, but in doing so we acknowledge their shortcomings and, in particular, the shortcomings of the rating system.

11.7 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend and I are basking in the glory of being described as two of the most civilised members of the Government.

Mr. Denis Howell: I said "more civilised".

Mr. Younger: I do not think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) described us as the two most civilised members of the Government, but perhaps he will come to that on a future order if we carry on as well as we can.
I thank the Opposition for the way in which they have welcomed this reasonably restricted order which does a reasonably restricted thing. It tries to restore the rebate scheme to the position it was in before the recent increases in social security benefits, for, unless this were done, the increases, when promulgated, would take some people out of rebate, which is not by any means the Government's intention.
The order updates the arrangements for rate rebates to recognise the increase in social security benefits which have been made in recent months. This is happening more frequently than in the past because we have introduced for the first time an annual uprating of the benefits which has been widely welcomed. A concomitant of that is the need to update rate rebate schemes to ensure that they are in tune with the new benefits.
At the end of his speech the hon. Member for Small Hearth made some interesting comments about the number of different sources to which people must go to get assistance. I entirely agree with him that it is highly desirable to reduce the number, and there are various ways of doing this. The hon. Gentleman knows that the implementation of the idea set out in the Green Paper on the tax credit scheme is one way in which many people in need will be helped by a great reduction of the number of sources to which they must apply for assistance. I hope that that statement will go a considerable way towards meeting some of the hon. Gentleman's points.
I will not follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) in his wide-ranging review of the social security system in general, because to do so would be out of order——

Mr. McElhone: I will now merely refer to the tax credit system, because the Minister is anticipating legislation to be introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I feel that he will agree that the credits or allowances, however they are paid, will not increase the amounts going to the very needy, while under the tax changes envisaged those with incomes of over £6,000 a year will get a substantial increase.

Mr. Younger: I would not go all the way with the hon. Gentleman, but if he refers to my right hon. Friend's statement when he announced the Green Paper on the tax credit system he will see that that point was covered. But it would not be in order for me to go into more detail now.

Mr. Ross: Perhaps on the very narrow point of rent rebates, rate rebates and social security I might take the hon. Gentleman back to our discussions on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, when this matter, with its complexity and duplication in the social security area, was regarded as important. The Minister, in his usual charming way, said that the Government intended to look at it and see what could be done about it. Has anything been done?

Mr. Younger: Yes, indeed; and we shall be discussing this sort of arrangement elsewhere in the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is where the matter comes in, but, as he also knows, we have been taking very great pains to marry the application systems for the two forms of rebate. We are making progress, and when the appropriate time comes I shall be happy to explain it in detail to him. We have not forgotten it as a desirable aim, and we are, therefore, trying to design any changes in the scheme which my right hon. Friend announced in such a way that there will be a minimum of difference between the methods of applying each scheme. As I say, at the appropriate time we can discuss the details.
I will not be drawn by the references of the hon. Member for Gorbals to the Housing Finance Act because I would be ruled out of order were I to do so. I am itching to reply to some of the hon. Gentleman's points but must deny myself that pleasure.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said that it was not enough merely to reflect the increases in social security benefits in the uprating of the rent rebate scheme because those increases had merely kept pace with the cost of living. That is a wider subject, but I would deny what he says on any interpretation or mathematics he likes to apply. It is perfectly clear that, for instance, the increases in old-age pensions have exceeded any rise in the cost of living. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do his sums again.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) said, among other things, that the jump in rateable values had caused great difficulties and anxieties. I entirely agree that a revaluation causes much anxiety. We in Scotland had a revaluation last year which in England and Wales has not taken place for 10 years. The effect is that much worse because the previous Government postponed the revaluation. That is nice at the time but has its consequences later, and I am sorry that these may be felt at the moment.
It is important to emphasise to people that the jump in valuations does not necessarily mean that the amount they will have to pay will jump by anything like the same amount. That has not been our experience in Scotland. People have to pay more only when the local authority requires to raise more revenue. That is not directly connected with revaluation. I know that it is extremely difficult to put this across, but it is important to put it across, otherwise when people see their new valuations they get far more worried than they need. When people get worried about it we should do all we can to help them.
Several hon. Members said that the cities are very concerned about the effect of revaluation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has agreed to meet representatives of the major cities, when I am sure these points will be well aired.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development


has said, we are considering the possibility of a new formula for the resources element because of the anomalies which crop up from time to time. My right hon. Friend will certainly keep that under active consideration.

Mr. Marks: It is clear, I hope, that the cities that do not receive a resources grant will not get help in finding the money that they lose through rate rebates?

Mr. Younger: That is a matter which the cities can raise in the normal way. That may be so in some cases.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South, also spoke of the reluctance of Bristol to distribute rate rebate forms. My right hon. Friend has been personally concerned about this. It was originally brought to his notice by the Child Poverty Action Group with which his Department was working in the campaign in Islington for publicising rent rebates. My right hon. Friend took up with Bristol its refusal to distribute forms to voluntary societies which wish to get those who are entitled to rate rebates to make claims for them. My right hon. Friend intends to pursue this matter in a circular to local authorities urging them to help voluntary societies in that way, and I agree with him that that is desirable.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South, asked whether the application form was too complicated. We do not directly control the layout of forms put out by local authorities, but the information that has to be provided is not complicated. All that is needed is the income figure and the family circumstances—whether the applicant is married and the number of children. It is unnecessary to have too complicated a form to obtain that information, and I hope that local authorities will try to simplify the form whenever they can.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals asked what could be done to increase the take-up of benefits. I agree that we should do all we can by publicity to encourage people to take up these benefits as of right. We advertise the rate rebate scheme in the national newspapers, as do many local authorities. I have heard and seen one or two references to the scheme on radio and television, and leaflets and posters are distributed.

These do not always achieve the effect we want, but we try hard to get across the idea that rate rebates are there to be used and that we want more people to get them.

Mr. McElhone: Will the hon. Gentleman do his utmost to ensure that the availability of rate rebates is made known? Will he assure us that a request will be sent to local authorities to explain the increased allowance, and can some financial assistance be given, perhaps through the rate support grant, to enable the local authorities to publicise these schemes?

Mr. Younger: I am not sure about the latter point, but I undertake to do all that I can, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will, to bring home to local authorities the need to reinforce any efforts they may make to get people to take them up.

Mr. Ross: We now have many schemes for rate and rent relief, and so on. Many people who apply for rent rebates are ruled out and many who apply for social security help are ruled out. However, people do not realise that the tables are so designed to try to bring in those who are on the borderline and do not get this other assistance. Could the Government direct a little more publicity towards that aspect? Many people do not apply because they feel that, having been turned down for social security assistance, there is no point in applying elsewhere. The purpose of publicity was to emphasise that point and to get more people to apply. The Labour Government made special efforts to try to find out the people who were applying. In the first few years just over 90,000 people were getting help. We were not satisfied then, bearing in mind the increasing numbers of old-age pensioners, and there is no ground for satisfaction now that the figure has reached 100,000.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman has made an interesting suggestion, which I will follow up, why it may be difficult to bring home to people that they may be entitled to this relief.
Social security officers are instructed to give people advice on which of the options is most favourable to them—that is, whether it is better to go for social security or to take the rate rebate. They


are instructed to give this advice to applicants whenever they can, and I think it is valuable advice.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: That is slightly different from the point that I made. I appreciate that if an application is made and it is more beneficial to the applicant to apply for a rent or rate rebate, that is done. But where someone has applied for social security and is perhaps £2 or £3 above the limit, I am not sure that that applicant is advised to go for the rent and rate rebates.

Mr. Younger: I hope that he is. I know that social security officers are instructed to be as helpful as possible in giving advice to people. I think that in general most of them try very hard to give such advice.
I was asked whether family income supplement was included. I confirm that it is taken into account when assessing entitlement to rent and rate rebate.
I was asked about the take-up. I cannot give a breakdown as to which authorities are better or worse on take-up of rate rebates partly because I do not have the figures here and it is not by any means easy, looking at the figures produced by an individual local authority, to deduce whether it has a lesser take-up because of ordinary and explicable reasons or due to some laxness or remissness on its part. It would require a lot of study and, indeed, survey work to establish which local authorities were doing better or worse than others. However, the numbers have not changed substantially over the years.
There are two periods in each year, a first and a second period. For instance, in 1969–70 in the respective periods there were 90,886 and 91,614 in Scotland. In 1970–71 there were 94,120 and 98,889. In 1971–72, the latest year for which we have figures, there were 97,737 and 100,355. So there is a slow and steady, not dramatic, increase. Of course, we would all like the take-up to be more. However, it is moving in the right direction.
The hon. Member for Small Heath—I think that I am right and he is wrong—said that our arithmetic was wrong. I have carried out as quick a check as I can in these circumstances and I believe

that broadly our arithmetic is right. The only point on which I could agree is that the children's addition is not as much as 12½ per cent. It is actually nearer 10 per cent., because, being a small amount anyway, it is rounded to the nearest 5p. I think that this is probably reasonable.
I am glad that the House has welcomed the orders. They are necessary in order to keep the rate rebate scheme doing what it was intended to do in the light of the changes in social security. I am glad to commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Rate Rebates (Limits of Income) (Scotland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.—[Mr. Younger.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

VALUE ADDED TAX (COIN OPERATED MACHINES)

11.26 p.m.

Mr. John Gorst: In raising the subject of the application of value added tax to the coin-operated machine industry I want to make it perfectly clear to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary at the outset that I am very much in favour of the principle which underlies the value added tax. One might have reservations about small details of its application but in general I support the tax in principle.
I must also immediately declare an interest as an adviser to part of the coin-operated machine industry; namely, to two trade associations which cover the amusement trades and the amusement catering side of it.
The anomaly to which I want to draw attention concerns the imposition of VAT—a tax which we should remember is designed to fall on the consumer—in circumstances in which it will, so far as


this industry is concerned, have to be borne by the supplier. Suppliers will have to carry it because it is technically impossible to adjust coin-operated machines to collect odd percentages, whether the simple one of 10 per cent. or any other percentage.
I should also like to make it clear that I am not discussing ordinary vending machines. They dispense a product, which might be cigarettes or packets of sweets. The owners of such machines can regulate the quantities or the weight; indeed, they can sometimes give change in the packets that are dispensed. Those are not the sort of machines about which I am talking.
The coin machines giving a service are in a category entirely different from vending machines. The coin-operated launderettes cannot half wash a bundle of clothes. A weighing machine cannot weigh the torso of a human being and discount the limbs. Nor can an amusement machine on a pier or in a seaside arcade give out half a game's worth of pleasure.
The Minister asserted in a reply that he gave me last week that the industry has coped with similar changes in the past. I believe that he was referring to selective employment tax and purchase tax. The implication was that if it has managed to cope in the past with these sort of changes, it could in the future deal with VAT. But, with great respect, this ignores the reality of the technical problems. Adjustments just cannot be made. A 1p coin place in a coin slot cannot have one-tenth of 1p added to it. It ignores the basic aim of VAT, which is, as I have said, a tax on consumer spending.
It also overlooks, most importantly, the savage penalising nature of the taxation which is already being imposed on gaming machines used in amusement arcades or clubs. It sets at naught the frustrating and petty inhibitions which have been heaped on the industry by the Treasury, the Home Office and the Gaming Board.
At this point I want to give some examples. In respect of the Treasury, I do not hold my hon. Friend responsible for this because this matter was implemented in 1969, and I know that he played a notable part in opposing it at the time. Nevertheless, in the intervening

years the Treasury has steadfastly refused to concede the disastrous effect which the 1969 duties have had on the industry.
The Treasury has proved deaf to the entreaties and pleas which I have made for information and for estimates on which the views it holds are based, and it will not help in respect of some of the restrictive practices whose removal might have assisted the industry.
I want to be specific about what I mean about lack of information. A certain amount of information has been made available.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I shall answer that when I reply, but I want to be clear on one point. My hon. Friend appears to be talking about VAT and gaming machines. Did I understand him correctly on that point?

Mr. Gorst: That is quite correct. I was going on to acknowledge that VAT is not levied on gaming machines because they are exempt, but later I want to deploy the argument that the situation which has affected the section of the industry paying gaming machine licence duty provides some lessons for us when we come to consider amusement-with-prizes machines that will be subject to VAT.
Returning to the question of lack of information, I would point out that a great many of the assumptions which the industry has had to make about the reasons for no alleviation are based upon the Treasury's refusal to accept, or its failure to find in favour of, the figures which have been submitted and which prove the case. On the other hand, when one has sought information from the Treasury one has found that significant aspects just are not available there.
I want to be specific. I refer to the cost of collecting the licence duty, the list of organisations liable to duty, the staff needed to collect it, the amount of purchase tax paid by the industry, the amount of corporation tax paid by firms in the industry, the number of bankruptcies and liquidations resulting since the duty was introduced, and, indeed, the very industries which are unable to pass on VAT. Such records are not kept in the Treasury. The Minister has already told me this in Written Answers at various times in recent months.
But it is not only a question of records that are not kept; the information is often not available—information such as the likely amount of revenue from VAT within this industry or, in another sphere, the cost of issuing a monthly licence, if such a proposition were to be accepted. This lack of information causes the industry to feel that its point of view is not carrying enough weight in the Treasury, and that the Treasury has not enough information on which to reject the pleas that have been put forward.
I turn now from the difficulties experienced with the Treasury to those experienced with the Home Office. The Home Office refuses to allow any adjustment on the limit of the value of prizes which was set back in the early 1960s. It is difficult to know the reason, because the Minister in the Home Office has not given one; but I suspect that when the Minister of State at the Treasury told me in a Written Answer last week that the 25p piece, which, incidentally, is the limit of the value of prizes, was down in value since 1964 by only 13 per cent., the Home Office will have said to itself that as it had declined by only 13 per cent. there was no need to increase the value of cash prizes. In fact, after doing some research I find it is clear that the cost of prizes has gone up by about 97 per cent. I will give some examples.

Mr. Higgins: In response to my earlier intervention, my hon. Friend explained the situation with regard to VAT on gaming machines. I am now having some slight difficulty in understanding his present argument in relation to VAT.

Mr. Gorst: I understand the difficulty. The industry has a backcloth of trading difficulties some of which originate from Treasury measures, some of which originate from Home Office regulations, but many of which are of a quasi-fiscal nature. Some of them relate to the Gaming Board's transactions. All of these factors create a background against which the Minister's encouragement to the industry to absorb VAT when it comes along is unrealistic.
I will deal with the value of the prizes. The nature of the prizes obviously varies enormously from place to place, but a typical prize is household crockery. My

investigations show that a three-piece canister set that in 1964 cost 5s. would now cost 45p; a pint Pyrex casserole that then cost 3s. would now cost 42p; a two-pint Pyrex casserole that cost 4s. 6d. would now cost 50p; an aluminium whistling kettle previously costing 5s. now cost 45p; a toilet brush and holder that cost 3s. 6d. would now cost 32p.
So, the cost of prizes themselves has gone up by a factor of 97 per cent. That is an important consideration in an industry in which novelty and fashion—the public always want something new—play an important part in the success of promoters. This is not a matter that can be left vegetating for a long time.
My third example by way of background concerns the Gaming Board. As a result of legislation, its interpretations of its duties frequently seem to be harsh and narrow. If an operator loses his licence for some reason, he loses not only his licence to operate machines subject to gaming machine licence duty but his business, because without a licence he may not operate. He is allowed time to sell his business, but the time allowed is so short that I know of cases in which the operator cannot sell at all. He is therefore faced with trying to sell machines which have absolutely no secondhand value. As machinery alone they are virtually unsellable.
This situation has been created largely as a result of duties imposed back in 1969; and this is the background against which the Minister is expecting the industry to adjust to the anomaly of VAT.
The Minister has seemed to ignore, because he will not concede, the penal nature of the existing duties which are levied. They are part of the scene that I have tried to paint. At the time when there was a boom in most leisure industries the amusements industry was being put into decline, and there is little evidence of change at present. For example, amusement-with-prizes machines licensed in 1971–72 dropped by 6,100 in the period from 1969–70. More recently, since Christmas, two leading manufacturers have gone out of business following the closure last year of Mayfield Electronics, one of the biggest manufacturers. In the early months of last year there was a continuous story of financial difficulties in the industry. I put to the Minister,


faced with these burdens, inequitable and unfair as they are, that no industry can be expected to absorb, adjust to or adapt itself for a tax in the first place not designed for it.
Of course, as I have already said, machines liable to gaming machines licence duty are exempt from VAT. But their remorseless decline—they are a significant part of the amusement industry—points to the fate which will be in store for the coin-operated amusement-with-prizes industry if it is subjected to the tax. Does the Minister recall that when ordinary annual licences for penny machines were introduced in 1969 a machine had to be used about 72,000 times simply to meet the duty? Does he appreciate that amusement arcades usually have more machines than people in them at any one time? Consequently a very great deal of usage of the machines has to take place before they are even in a position to pay any of the overheads, let alone the duty.
As far as I know it is not argued that arcades are socially undesirable. I would assert the contrary. They are entirely harmless and give innocent family pleasure to countless of holidaymakers in seaside towns. A perfectly reputable part of the traditional British seaside holiday does not deserve slaughter or stealthy annihilation by fiscal maltreatment. In many places coin-operated machines are the bedrock on which political, social or sporting clubs lean for their very existence. I hope the Minister will bear this in mind.
The Minister said that exemption of coin-operated machines from VAT cannot be reconsidered. I know that he is a reasonable man. I hope he will push his reasonableness to the point of trying to suggest how he envisages that these dumb machines will be able to ask the customer the extra 10 per cent. which will be necessary if they are to find the value added tax. If I cannot press him that far, can he give sympathetic consideration to other ways to ease the industry's difficulties?
First, will the Minister consider amending the holiday season licence, which allows full-time operation in the season only, so that a limited operation on, say, Saturdays and Sundays is permitted under that licence during the

winter months? That would be a considerable help.
Secondly, could my hon. Friend include the operation of 2p as well as 1p machines within the holiday season licence?
Thirdly—this may be a point on which he does not have a great deal of influence—could my hon. Friend convey to his colleagues in the Home Office his appreciation that, even if the consumer price index shows 25p in 1964 to have been worth 13 per cent. more than today, the cost of prizes has doubled, and the limits should be adjusted accordingly?
In conclusion, how does my hon. Friend expect these inert, harmless and in many cases fading automatons to continue feeding his voracious and no doubt hardworking Treasury vultures, especially when the machines are weighed down with the insoluble task of passing on a value added tax that cannot be shifted on to or shared with the consumer?

11.46 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): It is a tradition in the House that if an hon. Member is not entirely happy with the answer a Minister gives him at Question Time he may well say that he will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Although many Adjournment debates are not preceded by such an event, it is universally recognised in the House that it is a very important right of back benchers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) on 23rd January, when Treasury Ministers were being asked Oral Questions, made such an intervention after I had answered a Question he asked me. Therefore, it is with some sense of tradition that I reply to what he has said tonight. Alas, on many of his points I must give him a traditional answer, that I cannot anticipate the Budget Statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because my hon. Friend raised a number of points that are essentially fiscal matters.
My hon. Friend referred to the debates when some of the taxes were introduced, and pointed out that many of us on the then Opposition side opposed them. But it is not irrelevant to remind him that we had some success in obtaining a concession from the Government of the day.
Time is short, so I shall turn to the point which my hon. Friend made at the beginning and end of his speech, and which was the subject of the Questions he asked last week.
I fully understand that traders providing goods or services by certain types of coin-operated machine are in a difficult position when the need arises to increase or decrease the charge for what the machine supplies. That is so if the service from the machine cannot be varied, if it can be varied only by a relatively high proportionate amount, or if the charge for the service is of a kind that can be varied only by a relatively large percentage. But, as I tried to tell my hon. Friend at Question Time on 23rd January, that is a difficulty inherent in the nature of the business. It is not something which arises simply in the application of VAT. It arises equally if there is a significant increase in wages of those looking after the machines, for example, or of interest charges, or in the wages of those cleaning out an amusement arcade or launderette. It is a problem which has always existed in this industry, an industry which has been around for a considerable time. I should not like to hazard a guess about when the first penny weighing machines were introduced. They have always had to deal with the problem of variations in operating costs and changes in the value and kinds of coins used to operate the machines.
Nevertheless, the variety and number of coin-operated machines has increased steadily, and that shows the resilience, the ability and the ingenuity of the industry to cope with problems of that kind. It is not for me to advise traders concerned on how best to adjust their business in the changeover from SET and purchase tax to VAT, and it is something which, by variations of one sort or another, they will succeed in overcoming.
It was suggested during our debate on the Finance Bill last year that the Government should solve the problem by exempting coin-slot machines from VAT. That is no doubt a possible solution. But VAT is a comprehensive tax, and the position we took on the Finance Bill was that we should seek to uphold that particular principle. The Minister of

State at that time dealt with that suggestion, and I repeat the point he made, that the services provided by these machines are in competition with similar services provided by other means.
Coin slot launderettes, for example, are in competition with laundries; amusement machines are in competition with other sorts of amusement, such as shooting ranges; automatic weighing machines compete with chemists' hand operated machines. There would obviously be, therefore, a considerable anomaly if one form of service supplied by coin operated machines were to be relieved of the tax while the same service provided by other means was taxed.
My hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate the point. It was one which the Minister of State made in the debates last year, and it was one which the House decided on that occasion was the right view to take. So I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we have taken note of what he said but that there are considerable difficulties of the kind I have outlined.
On the point about information, we are always anxious to provide the facts in answer to Parliamentary Questions if that information is available or if it can reasonably be obtained without a disproportionate amount of time and cost. Within that limit we shall do our utmost to supply the information. The Question by my hon. Friend last week was not simply one about which machines or industries were in the position he described. There are considerable economic reasons why the tax may or may not be passed on in any particular case. It would be an exaggeration to say that the slot machines and vending machines to which he has referred are in a unique position, or that they will face an insurmountable problem, as he has suggested. I hope my answer has spelled out the position at greater length. I stress that I cannot answer all the points he raised because on such occasions Treasury Ministers are necessarily inhibited at this time of the year.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.